From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 15:06:59 PST
To: Robert Rothenberg <rrothenb@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Another problem w/Data Havens...
In-Reply-To: <9501150445.AA13977@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950116180305.15126A-100000@access4.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 14 Jan 1995, Robert Rothenberg wrote:

> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 23:45:41 -0500 (EST)
> From: Robert Rothenberg <rrothenb@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Another problem w/Data Havens...
> 
> 
> I can see a potential problem with Data Havens (as they've been discussed
> here) that may very well inspire the wrath of the authorities more than
> nuclear secrets or dirty pictures of J.Edgar Hoover...
> 
> How does one keep a site from becomming a remote pirated-software exchange
> site? (Esp. since after that MIT case laws may be changed...) It seems that
> such a service could become a magnet for the "elite warez" crowd... and even
> if the operator isn't jailed it could lead to a shutdown of the service.
> 

Properly formatted, a dispersed multijurisdictional data haven can 
effectively say "Who cares" to the entirety of your point.

A data haven that mandates encryption for all incoming data will be 
essentially immune from this sort of problem.  The real measure of 
shutdown will be (on non-privately owned sites) the level of traffic that 
begins to interefere with other functions of the site.

Data havens that can split data to two or more locations in seperate 
jurisdictions can effectively ignore attention from authorities not 
related to the site management or site preformance.  Encryption mandated 
sites can also take this stance, while encryption is legal in any event.

-uni- (Dark)

--
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!