Anonymous remailers and Leahy bill

["A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>]

>I am assuming they fix the obvious error in the phrasing above.  

Until they do, we can only guess at the intent.

>"Thanks for the use of your nifty anonymous remailer.  Under a different 
>name, I intend to use this remailer (along with others) to transmit child 
>pornography, plot terrorism, and do all of my drug deals.  You've made my 
>life so much more secure!"

At this point, Bob has no choice other than to reply with: "I assume you are 
joking however since what you have stated is in violation of numerous laws,
we have no choice other than to disable your account. If we find that 
illegal acts have been committed using this remailer, we will have no choice
other than to report such actions."

Anyone stupid enough to make a statement like this deserves to be disabled.

>At that point, Bob is GUILTY of violation of the Leahy bill, because his 
>encrypted anonymous remailer:

No, if Bob were to follow the above scenario, he would already be guilty of
terminal stupidity.

>So maybe the word gets out, occasionally.  At that point, usage of anonymous 
>remailers declines, and people willing to risk operating one declines.  A 
>few come up which are run by the Feds, which log anyone who  attempts to use 
>it...

Declines ? They are only protection from amateurs. Do you really not 
believe that everything in and out of anon.penet.fi & others is not 
monitored *at the ISP/carrier level* ?

						Warmly,
							Padgett