1996-06-15 - Remailer Operator Liability?
Header Data
From: “John A. Perry” <perry@alpha.jpunix.com>
To: Cyperpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 82073e6be004b4d111d1fe9c62caf9cb164e372922e6232375fbabe1f28ecbca
Message ID: <Pine.NEB.3.93.960614082823.392A-100000@alpha.jpunix.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-15 03:46:15 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:46:15 +0800
Raw message
From: "John A. Perry" <perry@alpha.jpunix.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:46:15 +0800
To: Cyperpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Remailer Operator Liability?
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.93.960614082823.392A-100000@alpha.jpunix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
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?
John Perry - perry@alpha.jpunix.com - PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome!
WWW - http://www.jpunix.com
PGP 2.62 key for perry@jpunix.com is on the keyservers.
Thread
Return to June 1996
- Return to “Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>”
- Return to ““John A. Perry” <perry@alpha.jpunix.com>”
Return to “snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>”
- 1996-06-15 (Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:46:15 +0800) - Remailer Operator Liability? - “John A. Perry” <perry@alpha.jpunix.com>
- 1996-06-15 (Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:50:48 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
- 1996-06-16 (Sun, 16 Jun 1996 09:52:21 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
- 1996-06-15 (Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:50:48 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>