From: DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User <nobody@seclab.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:34:55 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en
Message-ID: <199810251100.MAA21744@rogue.seclab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Jim Choate wrote:
>
> anonymous wrote
> > And it's likely they have subpoenaed more people than we've heard from.
> > I just hope they don't subpoena Bill Payne, or we'll receive a copy of it
> > every week for years to come.
> 
> Yep, with those silly/strange capitalizations and sentence structures of his
> which look suspicously like some form of stego. You'd think somebody who
> claims to be that educated would have at least learned basic grammer (unless it
> was intentional).

That explains it.

> This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties
> of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's
> archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for
> inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future
> investigations.

Echelon. Also see [*1 below]

> In addition, while the remailer operators do seem to be
> protected by ECPA (I was advised that I fell into this category via SSZ)
> what about the public archive operators? Are they covered under this
> umbrella?

remailers are carriers. ECPA says that if you do not review content, you aren't
responsible for it.

Archivers are content providers. They have to make do with a 1st ammendment fig leaf.
What archives are there? There is one in Singapore (outside jurisdiction) and one
at sof.mit.edu that mysteriously went off the air a little while ago. Or was it
something more sinister?

On the topic of ECPA, I did an archive search: (my comments in [])

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Subject: Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 11:07:09 -0400 (EDT)

 
Bill writes:

> Heh.  OK.  Well, if one behaves "ethically", then I guess *that* closes
> the issue.  It's his machine and he gets to make the rules.  (this is
> my personally-adhered-to point of view)

My question is this: how does he know that the mail is encrypted if he's
not examining the mail that passes through his system? If he *is*
examining the mail that passes through his system, it seems likely that he
is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.


--Mike

[hey, Jim really is protected. He's not even allowed to read CDR mail.]

To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The last word? (forwarded article)
From: fergp@sytex.com (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 93 00:21:16 EDT

BoardWatch Magazine
July 1993
pages 43 - 46
 
Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service
 
by Peter D. Kennedy

[preamble]

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
 
Two provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (or
ECPA) were paramount in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed the
Secret Service violated two provisions -- one prohibiting
unjustified "disclosure and use" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 2703; the
other prohibiting "interception" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 22511(1)).

[*1 Interesting. Maybe they have Toto for something intercepted illegally
 and they're trying to find it from another source (by subpoena).]

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Restrictions on crypto exports
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 23:32:17 -0400 (EDT)

[re: public domain software on ftp archives]

It matters not, IMHO, since an ftp archive site qualifies as a library
open to the public.


--Mike