From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:41:41 +0800
To: Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: (fwd) Markus Kuhn on eternity
Message-ID: <199812080103.CAA09925@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Markus Kuhn writes:

> The main research aspect of this project is the joint administration of
> such distributed archives. For spam protection, you still need people
> who decide, which files are allowed on the distributed server
> infrastructure, and which are not. This administration is so far the
> weak link in the Eternity Service concept, because whoever decides that
> something is not spam takes over some responsibility for the content,
> and is therefore subject to legal power of national powers.

It would seem that it is the provider of the content, not the filterer,
who is subject to legal authority.  If I set up an open FTP site and
allow anyone to post anything there, I can be legally forced to shut
down once copyrighted software and child pornography appear.  It has
nothing to do with my filtering, it is my providing of the material that
is objectionable.

The Eternity concept has always been vague about exactly who is anonymous.
There are many parties involved: the ones who submit material to the
Eternity service; the ones who decide what material will go onto the
service; the ones who own and maintain the machines which hold the
material; the ones who receive requests for the material and supply it
in response; the ones who request material and receive it.

We need a more careful analysis of Eternity in terms of what levels of
anonymity are possible and necessary for each of these roles.