From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 06:54:34 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
Message-ID: <199605211725.KAA01106@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:28 PM 5/20/96 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>Forwarded message:
>
>> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:02:08 -0700
>> From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
>> Subject: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
>
>> was apparently sent through my remailer.  According to 18 USC 875(c),
>> "Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing
>> any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of
>> another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more
>> than five years, or both."  I may not be able to continue operating
>> either of my remailers (alumni.caltech.edu and shell.portal.com) for
>> much longer due to this kind of abuse.
>
>There should be a section in there dealing with 'knowingly'. If not then we
>should immediately bring charges against any and all newspapers who have
>ever printer a ransom letter, or perhaps even the Unibomber Manifesto since
>there is clear evidence of 'threat to injure the person of another'.

But even "knowingly" needs to be carefully defined.  A remailer operator 
today KNOWS that his system COULD be used for illegal activities; he merely 
doesn't know that they are, currently.  I think that the definition should 
be so narrow that it is impossible for a third party (or the government 
itself)  to incriminate the remailer operator by having his system forward 
arguably illegal or copyright-violating material.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com