If Wallace were up against criminal and civil penalties if he continued to hide his customers' real identities, he'd give them up in a hot second. Of course, as soon as there was a chance of that happening, he'd get out of
[Ray, a recent DC law school grad and anti-spam activist, is a good guy
but is IMHO sadly mistaken here. Thought this might be interesting.
--Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/
X-FC-URL: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request@vorlon.mit.edu
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 17:25:36 -0400
From: Ray Everett-Church
business entirely.
So how do criminal and civial penalties for not revealing a customer's name protect anonymity on the internet? Anonymity on the internet must be preserved. If you could come up with a way to make spam illegal and preserve anonymity, I would be very glad. Until then, I will have to oppose making spam illegal.
As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the
consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital
that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a
product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to
remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales
taxes, etc.
And in the case above, since the remailer in question is simply acting as
an agent for the business, there's no question of legitimate anonymity
implicated. Indeed, perpetuating anonymity for the business often times
facilitates activites that constitute a breach of contract and sometimes
even fraud. The whole reason to use a pro-spam anon remailer is so that
you can violate your ISP usage agreement without being traceable or
accountable. And if you've entered into that contractual relationship
with the ISP with the *intent* to breach that contract, it's fraud.
Anonymity for consumers, Yes! Anonymity for vendors, NO!
-Ray