[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision

To: [email protected], [email protected] (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Subject: Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:25:35 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 12-Jun-96 Re: Anonymous remailers
men.. by Dr.Dimitri V. KOTM@bwalk 
> This statute's language pretty much forces DOJ to appeal, even if they think
> the law sucks.

What, precisely, in the statute's language *forces* the DoJ to appeal?

It is the Solicitor General's decision. At close of business today, the
DoJ still hadn't told me whether they would or not. But we expect they
will.

-Declan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
  - From: Michael Froomkin <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
  - From: [email protected] (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)

Prev by Date: Re: Kaos vs Control
Next by Date: Re: Kaos vs Control
Prev by thread: Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
Next by thread: Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread