From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:52:21 +0800
To: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Subject: Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960615013332.641C-100000@smoke.suba.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960615172223.25332B-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, snow wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, John A. Perry wrote:
> 
> > 	Now that the CDA decision has been made, I was wondering how this
> > would affect the liability status of the various remailer operators? In
> > the past several remailers have opted to discontinue service due to
> > legal/political pressure. Will this CDA decision help to decrease remailer
> > operator liability?
> 
> 	I seem to get the idea that the problem is more in the realm of
> civil suits than problems with "direct" legality. I say direct, because
> IANAL and I don't know the correct way to phrase it. 

The distinction you seem to be looking for is civil v. criminal.

> 
> 	Saying it another way, it currently isn't the FBI that is the
> problem, but rather the CO$.

I agree.  This is one reason multi-jurisdictional services are going to
have to be formed.  At some point it is going to come down to, quite
simply, a law v. technology issue.  Crypto is simply too difficult, to
slippery to regulate.  See e.g., Clipper, France, ITAR, and other
sillys.  At some point remailers will be too.

Recognize that crypto and anonymous information distribution technologies
are alike in this fashion.

> Petro, Christopher C.
> petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
> snow@crash.suba.com
> 

---
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