From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:33:49 +0800
To: hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Subject: Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
In-Reply-To: <199605151758.KAA25847@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <klaeaGG00YUzIuOXsL@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 15-May-96 Re:  SEVERE undercapacity,
.. by Hal@shell.portal.com 
> After all, what is the purpose of anonymous remailers?  It isn't really
> to allow harrassing and abusive messages to be sent to one's enemies.
> And it isn't to defeat intellectual property laws by proving that no one
> can stop this material from being posted (remailers can't succeed in
> doing this, as I said above).  Rather, I view remailers as a natural
> extension of encryption.

Has anyone considered how the online copyright legislation being
considered in the House and the Senate may affect anonymous remailers?
There are some interesting provisions, such as requiring the provider of
a service or a network to take steps including "removing, disabling, or
blocking access to the material claimed to be infringing."

Also, each ISP would have to register an agent with the U.S. Copyright
Office to accept service, etc.

By my reading, anonymous remailers don't follow into the "local
exchange, trunk line, or backbone" provisions of the law.

The legislation likely will move through Congress largely intact -- at
least that's the reading I got from the House judiciary subcommittee
today.

-Declan