Does anyone have a cite to support the notion that common carriers are obligated to assist in the identification of users of their services? I got it at the January '94 USENIX tutorial on Internet and the Law. Given that it's still being taught, it should be no problem for anyone with interest to confirm that. I received annoying phone calls for a period of time, and the local phone company (US West) said they'd only get involved once I had an "incident number" (or some such) from the police department, and that information gathered would only be released to the police. I suppose if I actually filed a civil suit against the harassing party (even as a John Doe?) I could then use the discovery process to compel them to release their relevant records - but that's not really the scenario that Brad and 'kitten' seem to imagine. Um, speaking for myself and not Brad, that's exactly the situation where this sort of thing would be problematic. Copyright infringement is a criminal offence as well as a civil tort. So if Brad (or the newswire) wanted to push it, they could try to haul the remailer operator into court. And if he claimed to be a "common carrier," he's supposed to help. If he's unable (read, unwilling by design) to help, then it's possible that a judge could find that he's not a common carrier and therefore liable. Of course, I'm not a lawyer myself. And the law, in its infinite majesty, can do strange things. I personally believe that remailer operators should be considered to be common carriers, but that's a very tricky proposition to justify in a court. - kitten