[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
On Sun, 26 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 02:12 AM 5/27/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> You should take your own advice. The mere fact that the first link in
> the chain is "known" doesn't mean that it is provably involved. Without
> a substantial amount of bugging that the COS hasn't the resources to do,
> there is a big difference between them _believing_ that a given message
> originated there, and being able to prove it in court. And notice my
> caveat: "As long as the message subsequently passes through at least
> one trustworthy remailer, and probably a temporary output address."
The above is incorrect for several reasons and is a poor dodge to boot.
Take it to private mail.
>
> 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]