From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:47:37 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
In-Reply-To: <199801090251.DAA10017@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980109004125.006a98ec@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 11:42 PM 1/8/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>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.

I think it would be pretty hard to distinguish the Cracker Remailer from an
Internet presence provider.  If hotmail or tripod were to be covered under
the CDA, then I would have to think Cracker would be as well.

EFGA/Cracker offers accounts, has dedicated servers, and has no editorial
control over content. At around 20,000 individual messages per week, I'd
have to say we are as good of a small online service as anyone else - even
if we only offer specialized services.  Many ISPs only have 100 or so users
and only about 1/6 of the connectivity of Cracker.


  -- Robert Costner                  Phone: (770) 512-8746
     Electronic Frontiers Georgia    mailto:pooh@efga.org  
     http://www.efga.org/            run PGP 5.0 for my public key