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

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 957506568ebfe1e61914576c067ea0900a6335c993fd0d2ce9d44f763c6f1f94
Message ID: <v03007806b0db101f982c@[168.161.105.216]>
Reply To: <3.0.3.32.19980108004628.03b6bbe8@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-09 00:28:42 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:28:42 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:28:42 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980108004628.03b6bbe8@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <v03007806b0db101f982c@[168.161.105.216]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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.

-Declan


At 12:47 -0800 1/8/98, Tim May wrote:
>(Though the SPA and others may then go after the remailers. Ironically, the
>CDA exempted remailers--though not by name--from liability for messages.)







Thread