From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:04:46 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960617102043.00b73358@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 05:53 PM 6/15/96 +1000, Zed wrote:
>On another front, anonymous remailers were brought up in the latest hearing
>of the Church of Scientology's court case against Dennis Erlich. Judge Whyte
>expressed concern that trade secret status could be destroyed simply by
>posting information through an anonymous remailer. 

Of course, trade secret status could also be destroyed by posting something
straight without anonymity.  And were one judgment proof one's exposure as
the poster would be meaningless.  Even a completely non-anonymous account
may be hard to trace if you have a common name and the account is based
somewhere far from home.  If you open an account on a Dutch system using
your (common) name, you might be hard to find.

It's the ease of publication not the anonymity that makes the Net dangerous
for trade secrets.

DCF

"If the most common given name on earth is Mohammed and the most common
surname is Lee does that mean that the most common name is Mohammed Lee?"