From: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@styx.ios.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:02:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Is ths legal?.. (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951217101355.22454C-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9512171010.A7388-0100000@styx.ios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> I disagree.  Instead it implies that interception and administrative 
> review of content will be tolerated where it is "a necessary incident to 
> the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or 
> property of the provider of that service."  Note that it will be the 
> provider who makes the definition in the ex ante application.
> 
The provider is allowed access ONLY for QC purposes. Getting back to thhe 
original point, the provider's ability to interpret the contents of the 
message is in no way required to monitor the system and cannot be used as 
a justification in itself for prohibiting use of crypto. 

Also, what if someone outside the system emails encrypted messages to the 
user. What authority would the sys admin have there??

Jay Holovacs <holovacs@ios.com>
PGP Key fingerprint =  AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27  AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90 
 (KEY id 1024/80E4AA05) email for key