From: loki@infonex.com (Lance Cottrell)
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 10:09:37 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <hfinney@shell.portal.com
Subject: Re:  SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
Message-ID: <adc3d3ea04021004e67a@[206.170.115.3]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


It seems very reasonable to allow posting only through nym-servers. That
gives a point at which payment can be received, and an account which can be
removed for abuse. Since the nym is password protected, it also help build
the reputation of the nym.

        -Lance

At 5:46 PM 5/15/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:   IN%"hfinney@shell.portal.com"  "Hal" 15-MAY-1996 19:23:06.71
>
>>Maybe the operators can try to plead that they are like "common carriers"
>>and should not be blamed for what people post.  Still it is going to take
>>deep pockets at best to prevail in this dispute, and it isn't even clear
>>that the remailer will win.  Maybe the lawyers on the list could comment
>>on legal liability of a remailer used to repeatedly post copyrighted
>>material, whether Scientology scriptures or Microsoft Word binaries.  I
>>don't see how it can happen.
>
>        Part of this problem may be solved through the proper decisions on
>the liability of ISPs for material on them. The concept would seem to be
>extensible. If a country has A. good laws on the subject and B. a pretty good
>court system - e.g., one in which it's difficult to sue and easy to defend -
>that country would seem to be suitable for setting up a remailer front end.
>Other remailers can just be used for chaining, and can't be proven to have
>carried a message (even unknowingly) without defeat of the remailer system
>via traffic analysis. (A reason for remailer operators to run automatic
>mailing scripts, BTW.)
>
>>This was the basis for my suggestion that remailers may have to stop
>>supporting posting of messages, and instead be used for private mail
>>between consenting individuals.  Granted, this would probably eliminate
>>99% of non-cover remailer traffic.  But I would argue that as long as the
>>core functionality is there of letting people communicate with each other
>>anonymously and consensually, we would still offer an important service.
>
>        In other words, a remailer that would only forward mail to someone if
>the email address in question gave consent? Mailing lists and mail-to-news
>gateways can still be signed up by their operators under such a system, and
>it's possible the remailer might be charged along with the operator if
>copyrighted material was posted.
>
>>Encryption hides the contents of the messages you send from
>>eavesdroppers.  But they can still see who you are communicating with.
>>Remailers extend privacy protection beyond "what you say" to "who you say
>>it to".  When used with pseudonym servers and some of the extensions we
>>have discussed here over the years (maildrops, etc.), they can allow the
>>anonymous two-way communication that is needed for real privacy.
>
>        How much use is a pseudonym if you can't practically use it for
>building reputation capital? It's hard to do that when you can't send to anyone
>but individuals, instead of to publically available sources.
>        One idea would be bonded pseudonyms. If you put up an adequate bond to
>the remailer front end operator (to A. pay fines and B. cover any legal fees),
>then you get to send to public fora. This would also be profitable for the
>remailer operator, if he/she got to keep the interest (assuming deposit into
>some investment).
>        -Allen

----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Cottrell   loki@obscura.com
PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server.
Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available!
http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly
it flips over, pinning you underneath.  At night the ice
weasels come."
                        --Nietzsche
----------------------------------------------------------