cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-06-13 - Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision

Header Data

From: “Declan B. McCullagh” <declan+@CMU.EDU>
To: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Message Hash: 020eb0eb3f05098af7b49ecce17862f011047609d1df6ce2b7473c39931927de
Message ID: <EljtUzK00YUyR7NsIY@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply To: <k4oFPD30w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-13 09:07:50 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:07:50 +0800

Raw message

From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:07:50 +0800
To: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Subject: Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
In-Reply-To: <k4oFPD30w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <EljtUzK00YUyR7NsIY@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 12-Jun-96 Re: Anonymous remailers
men.. by Dr.Dimitri V. KOTM@bwalk 
> This statute's language pretty much forces DOJ to appeal, even if they think
> the law sucks.

What, precisely, in the statute's language *forces* the DoJ to appeal?

It is the Solicitor General's decision. At close of business today, the
DoJ still hadn't told me whether they would or not. But we expect they
will.

-Declan

Thread