From: Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 06:32:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva
In-Reply-To: <668vgi$bpo@news1.panix.com>
Message-ID: <19971218222004.16727.qmail@nym.alias.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

politas@dynamite.com.au (Politas) wrote:

> >Are you saying that Hotmail should be made a guarantor of the identity of
> >its accountholders, or merely that they could be required, under certain
> >circumstances, to divulge what information (if any) it possesses, regardless
> >of its accuracy?  AFAIK, the latter case is currently operative, since
> >Hotmail's records are presumably already subject to subpoena (in the USA,
> >at least -- I just realized you're posting from an Aussie domain).
>  
> The latter.  Additionally, if they cannot provide a reliable next link in
> the identity chain (like another validated email address or a time-stamped
> IP address used to register the account), they should be held responsible
> for the posts from that account.

Why should the operator of the delivery medium be held responsible for the
contents of a message?  Perhaps the laws are different "down under", but here
in the USA anyone can deposit coins in a public telephone and make a phone
call without identifying himself.  The person can't be identified, and
neither can you hold the telephone company responsible for any damages you
claim resulted from the call.

It's the same with the US Postal Service.  You can mail a letter from a public
mail box and as long as the proper postage is attached, it will be delivered
even if it doesn't have a return address, or if it contains a false return
address.  But if someone mails you a letter bomb, you can't sue the US
Postal Service.

So why institute draconian rules to restrict e-mail which are stricter than
those for other communications media?

I'll reiterate my opinion that such restrictive rules would cripple the
usefulness of many currently-available services.  I seriously doubt that
Hotmail would take on the expense of identifying each of its account holders
as well as assuming liability for any that it misidentified, in order to
provide a FREE service.  In fact, it would impact most ISPs.  As long as you
pay your monthly access fees on time, most ISPs take you at your word that
the name and address you supplied on your application are correct.

I would suggest that the recipient of a piece of e-mail should bear the
responsibility for authenticating its sender before sending someone money,
or taking other action that could potentially incur a financial loss.  
Transferring that duty to the ISP makes no sense.  For one thing, who would 
you hold responsible?  Your own ISP?  The one listed in the return address?  
Even if it's forged?  What if the ISP is located in another jurisdiction?
 
- ---
Finger <comsec@nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNJmXHAbp0h8ZvosNAQFC1wf+N7lY2dXQNXt/Wl4MXPR+c2Intr4bG9Xw
N7qaKiHRqNszuD55yx5iXhKRgxtbnlBzMuUv3sr800M3kmrXqQJBzeDA/ljcASSU
Bi5kBHlpTcASm5H1jhRjRSk0BL+KCuTzmunCSExiB7tD2XNb/qGO+4bpcMdJ2A3z
nY7kmNjptt9vZJ3ZSz2l/n7IbplcUXWiRcHeJ4Nwp6ehjYzJX43d5snzhymJhLlK
6paX461Szcn5+3ILgv2JPfMxdG282mY1dSzxpScaHZ1pu0dh3702TlO37A9sfykc
4yAFDDLaCBnidyw0Fz//YGpgNhCYphKDyx1yNF7Aeyni0Kv0YovAtg==
=8nzS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----