[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 12:10 AM 5/25/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
> >From: IN%"[email protected]" "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 22:52:03.64
> > Why the first in chain? If the anti-traffic-analysis provisions are
> >working properly, it should be impossible to prove that a given first remailer
> >was the first remailer for any particular message. I had thought that even
> >civil courts required that you be the person who committed some act, not the
> >person who _might_ have committed some act. Otherwise, all the remailers are
> >in danger. This is even if someone tries an entrapment by sending through some
> >illegal material - if the courts accept that they should be allowed to do this,
> >then all the remailers they chained are going to be hit.
>
> Likewise, I don't see why the first address in the chain is vulnerable, as
> long as the message subsequently passes through at least one trustworthy
> remailer, and probably a temporary output address.
I repeat, all it takes is one person to send through only one remailer
(perhaps even a Co$ plant) and the first in chain remailer is toasted.
Think before you type please.
> Jim Bell
> [email protected]
---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:[email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: [email protected]