From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 02:53:56 +0800
To: Gary Howland <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
Message-ID: <m0twAV8-0008yYC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:12 AM 3/11/96 -0500, Gary Howland wrote:
>Dan Weinstein writes:
>Dan says "you" wrote:
>> > Question:  What, exactly, is the motivation of a person running an
>> > anonymous remailer?  His motivation is clear:  To allow people to
>> > send anonymously untraceable messages.  Assuming he's of ordinary
>> > levels of intelligence or beyond, he is aware that somebody may some
>> > day use his system for illegal purposes.  You're going to have to
>> > explain why a court _CAN'T_ interpret this as being in violation of
>> > the law.
>> 
>> If I rent cars, someone might one day use a car rented from me in a
>> robbery.  Does that make my an accessary?  NO.
>
>This is an unfair analogy.  Now if you had said that you rented cars
>without asking for proof of identification, thus making your car hire
>centre very useful to robbers, that may more closely resemble the
>anon-remailer situation.
>Gary

Exactly!  I'm glad you noticed, and commented.  As  you've noticed, I keep 
getting faulty reasoning from people who SHOULD know better.  Analogies are 
extremely useful, but if they are poorly crafted, they do little more than 
show the limitations of their author.