May I humbly suggest that the below legal opinion may be something less than complete and reliable? -Declan At 22:32 9/14/2000 -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
Of course being considered an ISP or "provider" may mean you have to comply with CALEA and provide LEO's wiretap access.
Between a rock and a hard place ?
Of course wiretap access to data encrypted elsewhere wouldn't do anyone much good. Maybe traffic analysis.
Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
----- Original Message ----- From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: "Jay Holovacs" <holovacs@idt.net>; "Jodi Hoffman" <jlhoffm@attglobal.net>; <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>; <declan@well.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:52 PM Subject: Re: CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I've been running an anonymous remailer since DefCon, when a certain speaker motivated me to set one up. I get on average 1 threat of bodily harm and 3 threats of lawsuits per day because of this.
To attempt to answer the question "why do you run a remailer", I put up the page http://www.melontraffickers.com/remailer.html.
This seems to have the effect of further annoying those who would have anonymous remailers outlawed.
I don't enjoy the fact that some people are being harassed through my remailer. But I cannot prevent that without limiting the effectiveness of the remailer.
Have there been any court rulings that define the level of liability for remops whose remailers are used to facilitate criminal actions?
Is someone like myself, running a public remailer, considered an ISP? (I'm thinking of the Prodigy ruling, where Prodigy was deemed not responsible for content posted on its BBS system.)
- --Len.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Perhaps an analogy might help make the general case for support of free speech.
We may not like what our neighbor is doing with his lawn or house. But it is in our best interests, generally speaking, to defend his property rights from new laws and regulations because tomorrow our home could be at risk.
-Declan
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jay Holovacs wrote:
How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech.
This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to let them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if they can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate or instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps you from being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a gay?
__
L. Sassaman
Security Architect | "Lose your dreams and you Technology Consultant | will lose your mind." | http://sion.quickie.net | --The Rolling Stones
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.
iD8DBQE5wUiWPYrxsgmsCmoRAuapAKDUQEz8mN67NnioFD2Q2YP/Gfe4zwCgwFZE 6ncZVIbwMu5a7dL2ASr2NQY= =5U53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----