[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en
- From: DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User <[email protected]>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:00:01 +0100 (CET)
- Comments: This message did NOT originate from the Sender address above.It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.The message sender's identity is unknown and virtually not replyable.The cryptographic technology used for anonymizing messages providesTOTAL anonymity, that is, there is NO WAY of tracing back the senderof the message. Please check http://anon.efga.org/~rlist orhttp://www.publius.net for more information about the MIX technology.Please report problems to <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
Jim Choate wrote:
> anonymous wrote
> > And it's likely they have subpoenaed more people than we've heard from.
> > I just hope they don't subpoena Bill Payne, or we'll receive a copy of it
> > every week for years to come.
> Yep, with those silly/strange capitalizations and sentence structures of his
> which look suspicously like some form of stego. You'd think somebody who
> claims to be that educated would have at least learned basic grammer (unless it
> was intentional).
That explains it.
> This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties
> of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's
> archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for
> inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future
Echelon. Also see [*1 below]
> In addition, while the remailer operators do seem to be
> protected by ECPA (I was advised that I fell into this category via SSZ)
> what about the public archive operators? Are they covered under this
remailers are carriers. ECPA says that if you do not review content, you aren't
responsible for it.
Archivers are content providers. They have to make do with a 1st ammendment fig leaf.
What archives are there? There is one in Singapore (outside jurisdiction) and one
at sof.mit.edu that mysteriously went off the air a little while ago. Or was it
something more sinister?
On the topic of ECPA, I did an archive search: (my comments in )
From: Mike Godwin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 11:07:09 -0400 (EDT)
> Heh. OK. Well, if one behaves "ethically", then I guess *that* closes
> the issue. It's his machine and he gets to make the rules. (this is
> my personally-adhered-to point of view)
My question is this: how does he know that the mail is encrypted if he's
not examining the mail that passes through his system? If he *is*
examining the mail that passes through his system, it seems likely that he
is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
[hey, Jim really is protected. He's not even allowed to read CDR mail.]
To: [email protected]
Subject: The last word? (forwarded article)
From: [email protected] (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 93 00:21:16 EDT
pages 43 - 46
Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service
by Peter D. Kennedy
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Two provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (or
ECPA) were paramount in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed the
Secret Service violated two provisions -- one prohibiting
unjustified "disclosure and use" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 2703; the
other prohibiting "interception" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 22511(1)).
[*1 Interesting. Maybe they have Toto for something intercepted illegally
and they're trying to find it from another source (by subpoena).]
From: Mike Godwin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Restrictions on crypto exports
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 23:32:17 -0400 (EDT)
[re: public domain software on ftp archives]
It matters not, IMHO, since an ftp archive site qualifies as a library
open to the public.