CDR: Re: Canada outlaws anonymous remailers (was Re: GigaLaw.com Daily News, September 15, 2000)

[Declan McCullagh]

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.