Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail?

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Joichi Ito writes:

(quoting my post)

> >And even that last remailer may be able to claim ignorance (and win in
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >court) if he can show that what he mailed was unreadable to him, i.e.,
> >encrypted to the recipient. (This is another reason I favor a goal of
> >"everyone a remailer.")
> >
> >With canonical remailers, and no logging, earlier remailers should be
> >safe.
> 
> Interesting. So if the carrier is ignorant, they're off the hook?

Note my "may" above...none of this stuff has been tested in court.
(Not even digital signatures have yet been tested.) Common carrier
status--such as Federal Express has--has certainly not been granted to
remailers. 

It seems plausible to me that most jurors would be sympathetic to a
claim that a remailer was ignorant of what was being remailed. A bunch
of bits is a bunch of bits.

However, the actual crime may be the act of remailing itself. Not now,
but maybe someday. (Speculation: Legislation will be passed that bans
phone and packet remailers as being in contravention of the Digital
Telephony Act. A "know your customers" clause may require ID for each
packet. Lots of scenarios to consider.)

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."