CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?

[Neil Johnson]

Of course being considered an ISP or "provider" may mean you have to comply
with CALEA and provide LEO's wiretap access.

Between a rock and a hard place ?

Of course wiretap access to data encrypted elsewhere wouldn't do anyone much
good.
Maybe traffic analysis.

Neil M. Johnson
njohnson at interl.net
http://www.interl.net/~njohnson
PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7  CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC

----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi at quickie.net>
To: <cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com>
Cc: "Jay Holovacs" <holovacs at idt.net>; "Jodi Hoffman"
<jlhoffm at attglobal.net>; <fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu>;
<declan at well.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been running an anonymous remailer since DefCon, when a certain
> speaker motivated me to set one up. I get on average 1 threat of bodily
> harm and 3 threats of lawsuits per day because of this.
>
> To attempt to answer the question "why do you run a remailer", I put up
> the page http://www.melontraffickers.com/remailer.html.
>
> This seems to have the effect of further annoying those who would have
> anonymous remailers outlawed.
>
> I don't enjoy the fact that some people are being harassed through my
> remailer. But I cannot prevent that without limiting the effectiveness of
> the remailer.
>
> Have there been any court rulings that define the level of liability for
> remops whose remailers are used to facilitate criminal actions?
>
> Is someone like myself, running a public remailer, considered an ISP? (I'm
> thinking of the Prodigy ruling, where Prodigy was deemed not responsible
> for content posted on its BBS system.)
>
> - --Len.
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > Perhaps an analogy might help make the general case for support of free
> > speech.
> >
> > We may not like what our neighbor is doing with his lawn or house. But
it
> > is in our best interests, generally speaking, to defend his property
> > rights from new laws and regulations because tomorrow our home could be
at
> > risk.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jay Holovacs wrote:
> >
> > > How many times do I have to say this. I am *not* protecting them. I am
> > > protecting free speech... my free speech, your free speech.
> > >
> > > This is much more dangerous than you seem to realize. It's tempting to
let
> > > them get 'theirs' because their ideas are ugly to many of us. But if
they
> > > can be held liable for a vicious murder (which they did not advocate
or
> > > instigate) on the part of someone who read their site... what keeps
you from
> > > being held accountable for someone who reads your site then kills a
gay?
> > >
> >
>
> __
>
> L. Sassaman
>
> Security Architect             |  "Lose your dreams and you
> Technology Consultant          |   will lose your mind."
>                                |
> http://sion.quickie.net        |       --The Rolling Stones
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.
>
> iD8DBQE5wUiWPYrxsgmsCmoRAuapAKDUQEz8mN67NnioFD2Q2YP/Gfe4zwCgwFZE
> 6ncZVIbwMu5a7dL2ASr2NQY=
> =5U53
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>