From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: minow@apple.com
Message Hash: f37aa6b3847eae7aaad193cd4884f5c7f9ec8aa6b1057f018a106377741cb980
Message ID: <01I5156RK8ZI8Y4XHY@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-23 12:09:52 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 20:09:52 +0800
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 20:09:52 +0800
To: minow@apple.com
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
Message-ID: <01I5156RK8ZI8Y4XHY@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: IN%"minow@apple.com" 23-MAY-1996 01:57:15.69
>-- The remailer operator is legally enjoined from reading messages
> transversing his system. (For example, the remailer is subject to
> data privacy laws.)
I suspect that it is rather unlikely that the court would find a
remailer operator covered by those laws.
>-- The message was encrypted using the intended recipient's public key.
> (This means that, without access to the private key, the operator
> has no mechanism to examine the e-mail.)
This is related to the old ISP liability question, although amplified
by being not only a practical impossibility to filter but close to a physical
impossibility also. (Please note the "close" part.) I am not sure if a judge
could find any grounds to slap a remailer operator with contempt of court in
such a case, but if it were so, Uni has pointed out that it's rather difficult
to override a judge in such a matter, even based on plain facts.
-Allen
Return to May 1996
Return to ““E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>”
1996-05-23 (Thu, 23 May 1996 20:09:52 +0800) - Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns - “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>