cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1998-01-09 - Re: Remailers & N.E.T.

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: nobody@replay.com (Anonymous)
Message Hash: 4bd09544d7ecf11a04e121af562f01d4b67025ff8d118033bd7eab77e48d9ac6
Message ID: <v03007801b0db5ae481c8@[204.254.20.36]>
Reply To: <v03007806b0db101f982c@[168.161.105.216]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-09 04:55:20 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:55:20 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:55:20 +0800
To: nobody@replay.com (Anonymous)
Subject: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
In-Reply-To: <v03007806b0db101f982c@[168.161.105.216]>
Message-ID: <v03007801b0db5ae481c8@[204.254.20.36]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Sure. That provision of the CDA was not meant to apply to remailer
operators but online services, which cut a deal on that bill. Prosecutors
would point, I suspect, to legislative intent and say remailer operators
aren't covered; they'd say the text of the law is not unambiguous.

It is not an impenetrable shield against time in Club Fed.

-Declan


At 03:51 +0100 1/9/98, Anonymous wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>> I would be very afraid of relying on the CDA's immunizing provisions as my
>> sole defense against prosecution, conviction, and jail time, were I a
>> remailer operator.
>Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Thread