From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 03:45:55 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
In-Reply-To: <01I53PQSSUL88Y4ZAY@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960525102937.4595D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 25 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> From:	IN%"unicorn@schloss.li"  "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 22:52:03.64
> 
> >Remailers on the attack points (first in chain, last in chain) simply MUST
> >be disposable as tissue.  They must be run as anonymously as possible,
> >with as little connection to the ISP's assets as possible and immediately
> >disposable.  They must be easy to set up, runable without root and there
> >must be a much more efficent tracking mechanism.  (Mr. Levin has done a
> >terrific job, but even more needs to be done).
> 
> 	Why the first in chain? If the anti-traffic-analysis provisions are
> working properly, it should be impossible to prove that a given first remailer
> was the first remailer for any particular message.

Unless said message was sent only through one remailer.

In this case the remailer operator is very vulnerable to the problems we
have been discussing.

> >It only takes ONE operator to get a tiny ($2500-$10,000) fine or judgement
> >and that will be the end of most of the mailers.  Poof.
> 
> 	What, pray tell, is the result of a judgement in which the person
> manifestedly doesn't have the money to pay? I couldn't pay a 10,000 dollar
> judgement; I don't have that much money. I would guess it'd be some form
> of attachment of income; this wouldn't get them much...

Garnishment, attachment of assets, perhaps forcing you into bankrupcy.

Not pretty.

> >In my view trying to balance bias rather than eliminate it is much more
> >effective.
> 
> 	Modification of jury selection? Removal of some of the preemptory
> challenges? Hmm... some challenges are for cause, as I recall. Unless it's
> a particulary egregious case of such, I'd suggest allowing the other side to
> override such with expenditure of a preemptory challenge.

No, I mean that the selection process would be from a pool of experts on
the issues involved.  This is done in many European systems.

We should take this to e-mail.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com