this could happen to remailers (was Re: Whining for 'Accountability')

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Damage Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> forwards:
>
> [article describing a spam-baiting case with an unsuspecting
> business man as victim.  Some spammer sends spam purportedly from
> business man... business man gets lots of harrasing
> calls... business man calls for `accountability'... `government must
> do something']

I think this article lends credence to my recent arguments that
control of spam will lead to control of remailers.  Kent has been
arguing against these suggestions on the grounds that I am being
unrealistic or something.  More recently Tim expressed optimism that
attacks on remailers via this route be struck down by courts.

Now the spammers aren't using remailers that much at the moment.
Anti-spam laws will make them do so (or make them use off-shore
accounts).

When an incident like this happens via remailers, there will be
similar calls for `accountability' on the net, and for `government to
do something about the problem'.

If you're paranoid, you'll consider it likely that the mega-spam bait
through the remailer that is used as the show case will actually have
originated from a Fed Stooge.  (A la US Postal Inspector being
originator of Kiddie Porn that got the Thomases locked up in the adult
BBS case).


I don't spell out what a call to arms by USG on `accountability on the
net' is likely to spells for remailers, surely.  (Remailer user
escrow?  Banned remailers?  Illegality of using remailers even in
other countries?  Legislation calling for US ISPs to block non US
remailers?)

You should be worried, and you should be saying no to spam laws (or
any laws about net content).

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`