From: IN%"unicorn@schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 22:52:03.64
Remailers on the attack points (first in chain, last in chain) simply MUST be disposable as tissue. They must be run as anonymously as possible, with as little connection to the ISP's assets as possible and immediately disposable. They must be easy to set up, runable without root and there must be a much more efficent tracking mechanism. (Mr. Levin has done a terrific job, but even more needs to be done).
Why the first in chain? If the anti-traffic-analysis provisions are working properly, it should be impossible to prove that a given first remailer was the first remailer for any particular message. I had thought that even civil courts required that you be the person who committed some act, not the person who _might_ have committed some act. Otherwise, all the remailers are in danger. This is even if someone tries an entrapment by sending through some illegal material - if the courts accept that they should be allowed to do this, then all the remailers they chained are going to be hit.
This wanton suing, as I think we all know, is an abuse of the copyright protections and their intent. The only way to really deal with it is make remailers unassailable. Doing that with tricky dick type legal arguments will, in my view, eventually fail.
Ultimately, I have to agree. Protect the remailers as much as possible with the legal arguments... but don't depend on them. The government in general has no motivation to protect the remailers. They've got a motivation to protect ISPs, and thus may put in protections for them regarding liability.
It only takes ONE operator to get a tiny ($2500-$10,000) fine or judgement and that will be the end of most of the mailers. Poof.
What, pray tell, is the result of a judgement in which the person manifestedly doesn't have the money to pay? I couldn't pay a 10,000 dollar judgement; I don't have that much money. I would guess it'd be some form of attachment of income; this wouldn't get them much...
This we cannot allow.
Quite.
I wouldn't go this far. It is an excellent argument for picking juries that are experts with regard to the subject at hand.
One step in this direction would be requiring some level of education from juries. If the defendant is someone with a college degree, require the jurors to have a college degree. If the defendant is someone with a Ph.D., require the jurors to have a Ph.D. or similarly high equivalent (J.D., M.D., etcetera). While this doesn't mean that the jury will necessarily know what's being talked about (I've given presentations to _graduate_ school seminars in which I went well over the heads of everyone in the class - including the professor - after spending maybe four weeks working on the project), it does increase the chance that they're at least teachable.
In my view trying to balance bias rather than eliminate it is much more effective.
Modification of jury selection? Removal of some of the preemptory challenges? Hmm... some challenges are for cause, as I recall. Unless it's a particulary egregious case of such, I'd suggest allowing the other side to override such with expenditure of a preemptory challenge.
If harassing mail is the issue, I can see how this might help in terms of image. I don't think its a complete solution however.
Again, I think the attack points have to be protected.
Agreed. -Allen