L. McCarthy writes
The trick is finding countries which are a) fairly hostile to other countries, b) fairly permissive of free speech, privacy etc., and c) reasonably net-connected. Most countries would seem to fail at least one of these criteria w.r.t., say, the U.S.
Finland satisfies all these criteria with respect to the US, as does New Zealand to a lesser extent. In any case hostility is not really required. Going through other governments proper channels is as painful for governments as getting a building permit is for you or me. The level of motivation that would lead the US government to go through some other countries proper channels is roughly similar to the level of motivation that would lead them to shoot someone and then claim that the person shot was a child molester and NRA member resisting arrest. Even Canada or Mexico would give quite good protection against USA repression. Unfortunately both countries are fairly hostile to free speech and might shut down the remailer for internal reasons. But because the internet is world wide, all attempts to censor it are doomed, and I think it unlikely that any government, least of all the US, will even try. The internet can closed down, but it cannot really be controlled. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@acm.org