From: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 04:41:49 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
In-Reply-To: <199605151758.KAA25847@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960515142902.8511A-100000@kelly.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 15 May 1996, Hal wrote:

> The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the
> remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material.  That is
> what got the netherlands hacktic remailer shut down.  This shows, BTW,
> that being outside the United States is no guarantee of immunity.  Most
> Western countries support copyrights.
[snip]

I find this all very odd, since the Dutch court ruled that the use of the
Fishman affidavit on Karin Spaink's web page was not a copyright
violation, as Fishman was part of a US judicial record.  I'm assuming
that the Fishman material is what thay approched Hacktic about, as well, but
I'm not sure.  Maybe this is about something else (the NOTS materials), or
maybe the threat of legal action was enough to do Hacktic in, despite what
would seem to be a favorable precedent.

> This has nothing to do with tweaking Microsoft or Scientology by posting
> information they own.  If people want to do that, they need to find
> another method.  Maybe they can get usenet shut down if they try hard
> enough.  I don't know how that battle is going to come out.  But I don't
> see the remailers as playing an important role there.

It's not clear to me that Scientology is only concerned about copyrighted
material.  That's what they claim, but then Hubbard said, "The purpose of
the suit is to harass..."  Copyrights became the issue, IMHO, because they
have some legal ground to stand on there.

I think their goal is to make all their Net critics come out into the
open, and they're willing to use the legal system as a pawn towards that
goal.  You can't threaten or intimidate anon posters as easily.  You can't
send your private investigators to harass them and their families.

Taking away the ability to post to Usenet through remailers would give
them complete victory on this issue.  Not only them, but every other
religion/company/group that seeks to indimidate their Usenet critics.

And what if a mailing list critical to them springs up?  If they threaten
remailers about it, will we then cede the ability to send anon email in
response?

I appreciate the incredibly difficult position that all of this puts
remailer operators in, but I don't think CoS will be statisfied with just
stopping anon Usenet posts.  IMHO, they more likely want the remailers gone,
altogether.  Don't believe that this is about copyrights, just because
they say it is.

I think that if we want the right to be anonymous on the Net, people are
going to have to stand up for it.



Rich

p.s.  Anyone who thinks the idea of CoS harassing their critics is
farfetched should take a good look around Ron Newman's web site:
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html


______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs  richieb@teleport.com  http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause