CDR: Canada outlaws anonymous remailers (was Re: GigaLaw.com Daily News, September 15, 2000)
I wonder what this does to Zero Knowledge Systems? Cheers, RAH At 3:52 AM -0700 on 9/15/00, GigaLaw.com wrote:
Canadian Ruling Could Unmask Anonymous E-mailers Canadian e-mailers can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity if reasonable grounds exist to show they've distributed defamatory statements over the Internet. The change in Canadian law came after a landmark court ruling this week when an Ontario Superior Court Justice ordered Internet service provider iPRIMUS Inc. of Toronto to reveal the identity of an anonymous e-mailer. Read the article: Wired News @ http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,38734,00.html
-- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
At 10:58 AM -0400 9/15/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
I wonder what this does to Zero Knowledge Systems? ... At 3:52 AM -0700 on 9/15/00, GigaLaw.com wrote:
Canadian Ruling Could Unmask Anonymous E-mailers Canadian e-mailers can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity if reasonable grounds exist to show they've distributed defamatory statements over the Internet. The change in Canadian law came after a landmark court ruling this week when an Ontario Superior Court Justice ordered Internet service provider iPRIMUS Inc. of Toronto to reveal the identity of an anonymous e-mailer.
It's what many of us predicted (in writing, here) when it was announced that ZKS would locate in Canada because of (or influenced by) Canada's supposedly freeer policies on encryption. I wrote at the time, as others did, that Canada's supposedly "free export policy" was likely temporary and was more of a "show of independence" against what they perceived to be U.S. control and influence. Fact is, as we wrote at the time, Canada lacks a solid constitution for protection of basic liberties. Sure, defenders will scurry to point out, Canada now _has_ a charter/constitution. But it has not been the bedrock that the U.S.C. has been, nor has it had a history of important tests. Canada is fundamentally an ad hocracy. As for the effect on ZKS, I haven't seen any actual uses of Freedom, or users of it, so I doubt there will be much effect at all. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
I agree that ZKS took a risk by forming in a country that's more hostile to business, and has fewer constitutional safeguards, than the U.S. But to respond to Bob's point: I'm not sure the Wired article (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,38734,00.html) we ran on our site implies that anything has changed. If anything, it says that Canadian courts are following the U.S. lead in establishing procedures to "uncloak" email addresses at ISPs. That's a far cry from saying that businesses like ZKS without the apparent ability to "uncloak" email senders -- pardon the crass simplification -- will be necessarily affected. -Declan At 09:40 9/15/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
It's what many of us predicted (in writing, here) when it was announced that ZKS would locate in Canada because of (or influenced by) Canada's supposedly freeer policies on encryption. I wrote at the time, as others did, that Canada's supposedly "free export policy" was likely temporary and was more of a "show of independence" against what they perceived to be U.S. control and influence.
Fact is, as we wrote at the time, Canada lacks a solid constitution for protection of basic liberties. Sure, defenders will scurry to point out, Canada now _has_ a charter/constitution. But it has not been the bedrock that the U.S.C. has been, nor has it had a history of important tests.
Canada is fundamentally an ad hocracy.
As for the effect on ZKS, I haven't seen any actual uses of Freedom, or users of it, so I doubt there will be much effect at all.
I believe there is a difference between knowing who an "anonymous" e-mailer is and wanting to avoid disclosing such information... and operating a service where finding out is not possible (at least without invasive means). Its the old story, you cannot be subpoenaed to reveal information that you simply do not have. Whether or not you are permitted to operate a system so structured is another matter. -Jeff
I believe there is a difference between knowing who an "anonymous" e-mailer is and wanting to avoid disclosing such information... and operating a service where finding out is not possible (at least without invasive means).
Its the old story, you cannot be subpoenaed to reveal information that you simply do not have. Whether or not you are permitted to operate a system so structured is another matter.
You *can* be subpoenaed for that information, you just aren't capable of providing it. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jeffrey I. Schiller -
petro -
R. A. Hettinga -
Tim May