On Wed, 15 May 1996, Hal wrote:

The problem that I think the Scientology postings raise is that the remailers cannot really be used to post copyrighted material. That is what got the netherlands hacktic remailer shut down. This shows, BTW, that being outside the United States is no guarantee of immunity. Most Western countries support copyrights. [snip]

I find this all very odd, since the Dutch court ruled that the use of the Fishman affidavit on Karin Spaink's web page was not a copyright violation, as Fishman was part of a US judicial record. I'm assuming that the Fishman material is what thay approched Hacktic about, as well, but I'm not sure. Maybe this is about something else (the NOTS materials), or maybe the threat of legal action was enough to do Hacktic in, despite what would seem to be a favorable precedent.

This has nothing to do with tweaking Microsoft or Scientology by posting information they own. If people want to do that, they need to find another method. Maybe they can get usenet shut down if they try hard enough. I don't know how that battle is going to come out. But I don't see the remailers as playing an important role there.

It's not clear to me that Scientology is only concerned about copyrighted material. That's what they claim, but then Hubbard said, "The purpose of the suit is to harass..." Copyrights became the issue, IMHO, because they have some legal ground to stand on there. I think their goal is to make all their Net critics come out into the open, and they're willing to use the legal system as a pawn towards that goal. You can't threaten or intimidate anon posters as easily. You can't send your private investigators to harass them and their families. Taking away the ability to post to Usenet through remailers would give them complete victory on this issue. Not only them, but every other religion/company/group that seeks to indimidate their Usenet critics. And what if a mailing list critical to them springs up? If they threaten remailers about it, will we then cede the ability to send anon email in response? I appreciate the incredibly difficult position that all of this puts remailer operators in, but I don't think CoS will be statisfied with just stopping anon Usenet posts. IMHO, they more likely want the remailers gone, altogether. Don't believe that this is about copyrights, just because they say it is. I think that if we want the right to be anonymous on the Net, people are going to have to stand up for it. Rich p.s. Anyone who thinks the idea of CoS harassing their critics is farfetched should take a good look around Ron Newman's web site: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

I would really like to see a remailer that is somehow blinded. I don't know enough about how mail paths are generatered, but is it impossible to conceal the origin of remailer postings? Postings made to remailernym@alpha.c2.org would be spit out somewhere but without accountability? Impossible? Would do wonders defeating traffic analysis. I'd consider running a remailer, but after listening to the response to the anonymous poster a while back, it sounds like there are few if any simple options which do not require major time and effort to setup and run. --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 15-May-96 Re: SEVERE undercapacity, .. by Hal@shell.portal.com

After all, what is the purpose of anonymous remailers? It isn't really to allow harrassing and abusive messages to be sent to one's enemies. And it isn't to defeat intellectual property laws by proving that no one can stop this material from being posted (remailers can't succeed in doing this, as I said above). Rather, I view remailers as a natural extension of encryption.

Has anyone considered how the online copyright legislation being considered in the House and the Senate may affect anonymous remailers? There are some interesting provisions, such as requiring the provider of a service or a network to take steps including "removing, disabling, or blocking access to the material claimed to be infringing." Also, each ISP would have to register an agent with the U.S. Copyright Office to accept service, etc. By my reading, anonymous remailers don't follow into the "local exchange, trunk line, or backbone" provisions of the law. The legislation likely will move through Congress largely intact -- at least that's the reading I got from the House judiciary subcommittee today. -Declan