Re: [NOISE] Re: Do you feel lucky, punk?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 09:05 PM 3/10/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
>>In fact, I would argue that a remailer operator will actually be considered 
>>MORE responsible, legally, than Mrs. Bennis:  
>
>On the contrary, the government would have far _less_ ability to forfeit
>the property of a remailer-operator for the activities of a non-owning abuser
>than they do to seize Mrs. Bennis's car, because the misuser, Mr. Bennis,
>was also its owner.

Your logic is faulty.  The issue is not whether Mr. Bennis' interest in the 
car could be taken; the issue is whether _Mrs._ Bennis' interest can.  The 
"reasoning" given by Rehnquist (which I quoted; you ignored the quote) 
clearly indicates that he thinks Mrs. Bennis should lose her interest as 
well.  Go back and re-visit the issue.  

As for the comparison of the levels of "guilt" of Mrs. Bennis and the 
hypothetical encrypted anonymous remailer, generally the law tends to claim 
to punish people for things they can do something about; it is somewhat 
pointless to punish a person for something he (or she) has no control over.  
Mrs. Bennis can not be reasonably expected to be able to stop her husband 
from using the car; thus she can't be expected to stop him from ABUSING it, 
either.  Despite this, Rehnquist tries to punish her.  Clearly, he feels 
that anyone who is at the level of control of Mrs Bennis (or, presumably, 
greater) is responsible for such abuse.  (Four justices disagreed, however.)

An anonymous remailer, on the other hand, does not have to exist:  The 
operator could simply shut it down.  The remailer operator, therefore, is 
ABSOLUTELY in control of the behavior of his system:  He chooses to run it; 
he chooses the software; he chooses to keep records or to not keep records.  
All these things are within his control. If that system forwards a piece of 
email, it does so only because the operator allowed it to.   Thus, from "the 
Rehnquist perspective," the anonymous remailer operator is ABSOLUTELY 
responsible for the abuse of his system.  You may disagree, of course, but 
you aren't the sleaze on the Supreme Court who is going to make the decision.  

There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the Supreme Court will treat 
the anonymous encrypted remailer operator any BETTER than Mrs. Bennis, and 
in fact they will likely try to treat him worse.  How could you ever have 
believed otherwise?  

>On the other hand, I'd say that a remailer used for assassination politics
>is _far_ more likely to be seized, warranted, subpoenaed, and otherwise
harassed
>that one merely used for unencrypted dirty pictures or encrypted dirty 
money....

Which, of course, is one of the prime reasons this section is in the bill.  
You know it and I know it.  The Feds are running scared.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Klaatu Burada Nikto