[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On the crime bill and remailers
Responding to msg by [email protected] (Timothy C. May) on Tue,
20 Sep 10:40 AM
>I agree with Hal Finney's point that current remailers
>are far from the "ideal mix" described by Chaum and
>are basically not very good at what they are supposed
>> Claims here that remailers are designed to support sedition
>> prevent government surveillance are both wrong and harmful.
>> of material could show up at some future prosecution of a
>Maybe. This is why I brought up the "supporting
>terrorists" language of the Crime Act.
Hal and Tim point to the vulnerability of the person running
the remailer to being threatened through the equipment owner
(like John Perry's recent experience) or squeezed by government
agents into playing along with surveillors.
This isolation and elimination (or co-optation) of a target has
worked again and again to destroy networks once they become
serious threats to law and order.
Hal's warning is wisely heeded until all the remailer
beneficiaries are bear an equal share of the risks of being
charged a "supporting terrorist".