At 12:40 PM 5/22/96 -0600, David Rosoff wrote:
But even "knowingly" needs to be carefully defined. A remailer operator today KNOWS that his system COULD be used for illegal activities; he merely doesn't know that they are, currently. I think that the definition should be so narrow that it is impossible for a third party (or the government itself) to incriminate the remailer operator by having his system forward arguably illegal or copyright-violating material.
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
Can the same sort of standards as per the U.S. CDA be applied? The first draft of the CDA would have held ISP's responsible for, e.g., porn transmitted using their services. Isn't this the same sort of thing - that is, that remailer operators provide a service, and they cannot be held responsible for people who abuse that service? I think that this line of thought is reasonable.
"Reasonable," yes. But remailers provide a service that governments won't consider politically popular; ISP's provide a nominally popular service. The government will find a way to interpret the actions of a remailer entirely differnetly than that of an ISP. Sigh. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com