The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites

[georgemw at speakeasy.net]

On 4 Aug 2001, at 20:40, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:

> The only cite that could possibly refute my words above would be to cite someone being busted,
>since the behavior you claim is illegal, the behavior that George 
>announces his intention to engage in, is routine in most well run 
>companies.


Hey,  wait a second,  I never announced my intention to behave in 
any sort of behavior,  I think maybe I suggested that certain actions
might be appropriate in certain hypothetical contexts,  but I was
always at least that vague.  As I said before, I'm on nobody's side 
here.

If a lawyer type (BU or anyone else) wishes to post a list of specific
recommended policies which he feels can minimize the risk
of unpleasant contact with the judicial system,  without 
compromising our own goals, I think it's wise to give such
recommendations due consideration.

In the specific case of remailer operators, keeping logs which could 
be used to identify the original senders of messages is clearly
incompatible with the function of remailers,  and any node keeping
such logs should be considered cancerous.  
 
George

>     --digsig
>          James A. Donald
>      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
>      lZd4vAi2TTpp5GRW15mn1q+cyAFO0PJtAiYPT7GK
>      4aBAZQL08uKxJdCdzB6Qq5wZagEOir8ecDvv5GFYB
> 
>