1996-03-09 - Re: hammers, crowbars and remailers & Leahy
Header Data
From: “Declan B. McCullagh” <declan+@CMU.EDU>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 387545145dcfb3057af58a30112bb71cedddfbf387a220012fb789e35af59a3c
Message ID: <YlEApma00YUu8q9IxI@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply To: <9603082223.AA05907@cti02.citenet.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-09 15:37:01 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:37:01 +0800
Raw message
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:37:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: hammers, crowbars and remailers & Leahy
In-Reply-To: <9603082223.AA05907@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <YlEApma00YUu8q9IxI@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Mar-96 hammers, crowbars and
remai.. by JFA T. QC, Canada@citene
> Would an anonymous phone call notifying the hardware store owner that
> somebody will buy tools that will be used to commit a crime
> be significant?
I don't think so, or at least I'd argue that it's not sufficient. I
think the legal concept is _scienter_, or "guilty knowledge." Is an
anonymous phone call sufficient to establish that?
-Declan
Thread
Return to March 1996
- Return to ““Declan B. McCullagh” <declan+@CMU.EDU>”
Return to “jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))”
- 1996-03-09 (Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:38:44 +0800) - hammers, crowbars and remailers & Leahy - jf_avon@citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon (JFA Technologies, QC, Canada))
- 1996-03-09 (Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:37:01 +0800) - Re: hammers, crowbars and remailers & Leahy - “Declan B. McCullagh” <declan+@CMU.EDU>