cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-01-18 - Re: Another problem w/Data Havens…

Header Data

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 7fc3ed3bf981647731a89c823b7b4c55fc4f8f874008db43e4fbcd5c24faa418
Message ID: <199501181543.HAA08161@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950117183343.17037A-100000@unix3.netaxs.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-18 15:44:09 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 07:44:09 PST

Raw message

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 07:44:09 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Another problem w/Data Havens...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950117183343.17037A-100000@unix3.netaxs.com>
Message-ID: <199501181543.HAA08161@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: Michael Handler <grendel@netaxs.com>

   [automatically split and redistribute]
   If the authorities attempt to indict you for possessing illegal
   information / kiddie porn / whatnot, they have to prove that you
   interfered with the automatic redistribution process and examined the
   contents of the submission. If you in fact did not look at the submission,
   they would have a difficult time doing so. 

This is exactly the right kind of approach, I think.  It's more
expensive to implement than a readable-reject filter, but then I
expect a continuum of services.

The key legal point is "interfered with the automatic redistribution
process".  If an operator can point to those fixed properties of a
system which keep the operator ignorant, an opponent trying to prove
otherwise will have difficult time.

Eric

Thread