BOUNCE cypherpunks at Algebra.COM: Admin reques

[Igor Chudov @ home]

----- Forwarded message from owner-cypherpunks at algebra.com -----

>From owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM  Wed Jun  4 16:52:19 1997
From: owner-cypherpunks at algebra.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199706042152.RAA01373 at www.video-collage.com>
To: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM
Subject: BOUNCE cypherpunks at Algebra.COM:     Admin request of type /\bsub-scribe\b/i at line 7  

>From cpunks  Wed Jun  4 17:51:59 1997
Received: from sirius.infonex.com (sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2])
	by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01319
	for <cypherpunks at algebra.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:51:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from cpunks at localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id OAA09047; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rigel.cyberpass.net (root at rigel.infonex.com [206.170.114.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA09040 for <cpunks at sirius.infonex.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.cyberpass.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA13609 for <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA25146 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pathfinder.com (relay2.pathfinder.com [204.71.242.22]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA25141 for <cypherpunks at toad.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cp.pathfinder.com by pathfinder.com (8.7.3/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA15204; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by cp.pathfinder.com (SMI-8.6) id RAA03951; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:43:13 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at pathfinder.com>
Reply-To: declan at well.com
To: cypherpunks at toad.com
Subject: Anonymity should be banned for speakers and vendors
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970604174023.29555R-100000 at cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com
Precedence: bulk

[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 "sub-scribe" to fight-censorship-request at vorlon.mit.edu
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 17:25:36 -0400
From: Ray Everett-Church <ray at everett.org>
Sender: owner-fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu
To: sameer <sameer at c2.net>, tbetz at pobox.com
Cc: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Spam costs and questions

On 6/4/97 4:52 PM, sameer (sameer at c2.net) wrote:

>> 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 
the 
>> 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
<everett at cauce.org>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ray Everett-Church, Esq.  <ray at everett.org>    www.everett.org/~everett
 This mail isn't legal advice.   Opinion(RE-C) != Opinion(clients(RE-C)) 
 (C)1997 Ray Everett-Church ** Help outlaw "spam"=> http://www.cauce.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- End of forwarded message from owner-cypherpunks at algebra.com -----