my remailer taking some (mild) heat [LONG]

[collins@newton.apple.com (Scott Collins)]

For your edification:

I run a remailer.  Someone used it to post copyrighted material.  I was
contacted to help resolve the issue.  The person who contacted me, Brad
Templeton, was neither abusive nor unreasonable, but he did express some
interesting attitudes.  I am reposting the dialogue here.  My added
comments begin with '#'.

I must emphasize that I sympathize with Mr. Templeton and bear him no ill
will.  I am interested in his views---and your reaction to his views---of
remailers, their legality, and future.

##### Brad Templeton wrote: #####

Somebody posted an AP Wire story to comp.org.eff.talk using your
remailer.  We'll need to know who it was or have you contact them
so we can get them to make amends for the copyright violation.  Thanks.

##### I responded:: #####

Brad,

  # I included his initial message here

This is distressing to me.  I don't run a remailer to abet infringers of
copy (or other) rights.  I certainly do not condone this action. 
Unfortunately, there is little I can do after the fact.  My remailer is not
the sort that requires a priori relationships.  If a message has the right
sort of header, the remailer sends it on its way ... no questions asked.  I
never see any mail that passes through my remailer.  I keep no logs, the
efficacy of which would be compromised in any case by remailer chaining or
encryption.  I can block remailing to or from any particular address, but
my remailer is incapable of taking action based on content.  I am sorry
that I can neither tell you who it was, nor contact them ... not because I
don't wish to, but because I am unable to.

I will happily assist you in any way that I am able.  What follows is my
public policy with respect to the remailer.  It details my capabilities and
attitude.

  # I included my remailer policy here, which most of you have seen.
  # E-mail me privately for copies.

I hope this is of some assistance to you.

##### Brad Templeton wrote:: #####

I understand your policy, and I suspect that down the road that while
anon remailers will continue to exist and serve a purpose, those that allow
people to break laws behind them (defamation and copyright, and possibly
kiddie-porn in particular) will have to shut down.

The law is clear on this.  If a newspaper publishes libel, the newspaper
is liable with the writer, and fully liable if they hide the writer's
name.   You'll be in that boat, and shutting down or logging after the
fact won't do you much good.

I think the right answer is a remailer that logs, allows replies (like
the finet one) and which opens up in the case of illegal postings, or
any other postings that don't follow its rules.  It might say that
it demands a warrant, for example.

What you're doing is of little value.  Anybody can post anon to USENET
anyway, if they don't care about replies.  I am surprised you would
take the risk to add no functionality.

##### I responded: #####

Brad,

My immediate advice to you is to send mail to the same distribution that
the illegal material followed, requesting contact from the sender.  This
would have the same enforcability of reply as Julf's remailer.  People
rarely mail things to lists they don't themselves read, so it is likely to
be read by the intended.

As I said before, I will help you in any way that I can.

I understand that, lacking a perpetrator, I am the next visible target for
your ire ... so I am taking your comments as predictions about society (as
I'm sure you intended) rather than personal comments (as so many people are
wont to read into e-mail these days).

  # I included his first two paragraphs here.

My remailer is not a newspaper; rather it resembles the post-office, a
phone switch, or the hole in the tree trunk in "To Kill a Mockingbird". 
All of these allow communication with some amount of anonymity selected by
the sender (up to and including `no return address`).

Newspapers have editors.  There is a presumption of knowledge over their
content.  _Of course_ one sues such a publication for libel or error---they
have advertised their control over their publication so that readers may
trust in its verity and appropriateness.  One _must_ sue when such a
trusted publication causes damages.

Angry people can 'cement over the hole', but it won't be because my
remailer broke either faith or law.


  >I think the right answer is a remailer that logs,

Any phrase that starts with 'the right answer is' is questionable.  If
there were a 'right answer' for communication we would only need one of:
newspapers, phones, tv's, postcards, conversations in the hall, pounding a
broom handle on the ceiling, short-wave radio, ad infinitum.  The right
media depends on the situation and the people involved.


  >allows replies (like the finet one)

My remailer allows replies; the sender need only include a return address
(possibly encrypted) exactly like the US Post Office.  My service is
completely different from the finet one.  Julf's system requires its own
machine and huge space resources for mapping tables.  Such a system is
beyond my resources.


  >and which opens up in the case of illegal postings, or
  >any other postings that don't follow its rules.

My service conforms to this statement.  I was---and am now---happy to help
you resolve this issue to the best of my ability.  I won't support,
condone, or abet illegal activity; however, I can't and won't spy on law
abiding users on the slim chance that I could detect illegal activity a
priori.  I will enact restrictions that prevent illegal activity whenever I
can do so without impacting citizens (e.g., I can block addresses, etc.).


  >What you're doing is of little value.

It is unfortunate that your only contact with my remailer was of little (in
fact negative) value to you.  In in another situation you---as other people
certainly do---might value it highly.


  >Anybody can post anon to USENET anyway, if they don't care about replies.

My remailer makes no provisions for posting to usenet.  It is simply a
remailer; it can do nothing that sendmail cannot do.


  >I am surprised you would take the risk to add no functionality.

One if by land; two if by the information super-highway.


We're all together in this,

##### Brad Templeton wrote: #####

I thought it was for netnews, that is what I saw.  Actually, anybody can
do anon E-mail as well, but fewer know how.

You are not a newspaper, but I truly believe you are taking on all the
liability for bad things in the material remailed.

##### The End? #####


Scott Collins   | "That's not fair!"                         -- Sarah
                | "You say that so often.  I wonder what your basis
   408.862.0540 |  for comparison is."                 -- Goblin King
................|....................................................
BUSINESS.    fax:974.6094    R254(IL5-2N)    collins@newton.apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.  5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D  Cupertino, CA 95014
.....................................................................
PERSONAL.    408.257.1746       1024:669687       catalyst@netcom.com