Tim May wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 05:08 PM, Eric Murray wrote:
>
>
>>This was discussed long ago on cypherpunks, in fact the cyphernomicon
>>says:
>>
>>8.9.7. Possible legal steps to limit the use of remailers and
>>anonymous systems
>> - hold the re
James B. DiGriz wrote:
> James B. DiGriz wrote:
>
>>
>> Common carrier status for ISP's is not automatic, under the '96
>> Telecom Act and later additions. You have to file with the FCC and
>> promise to remove material anybody complains about, etc. in exchange
>> for indemnification from liab
James B. DiGriz wrote:
>
> Common carrier status for ISP's is not automatic, under the '96 Telecom
> Act and later additions. You have to file with the FCC and promise to
> remove material anybody complains about, etc. in exchange for
> indemnification from liablility.
>
> I took a look at i
On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 07:22 PM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
>> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception,
>> that
>> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be
>> claimed by some (don't here it as m
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that
> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be
> claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores
> could be treated as common carriers "so long
On 5 Sep 2001, at 17:26, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.]
> Since a remailer, on the other hand does not exercise any independent
> editorial judgment about the content of the work, the burden should
> properly be on you to argue that a law rest
Tim May writes:
> I often talk about "re-commenters" (hyphen added to emphasize the
> "commenter" part). If I get mail, or letters, or e-mail, and then pass
> it along to my friends or others, WHERE IN THE FIRST does it say I need
> permission from government?
You're absolutely right, no law c
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that
> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be
> claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores
> could be treated as common carriers "so long
On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 06:06 PM, A. Melon wrote:
> Tim May writes:
>> I often talk about "re-commenters" (hyphen added to emphasize the
>> "commenter" part). If I get mail, or letters, or e-mail, and then pass
>> it along to my friends or others, WHERE IN THE FIRST does it say I need
On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 05:08 PM, Eric Murray wrote:
>
> This was discussed long ago on cypherpunks, in fact the cyphernomicon
> says:
>
> 8.9.7. Possible legal steps to limit the use of remailers and
> anonymous systems
>- hold the remailer liable for con
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 05:26:43PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.]
>
> At 05:17 PM 9/4/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >And let me play Devil's Advocate to this DA position:
> >
> >Not to sound overly Choatian, but there is nothing in the First A
[I'm not saying I believe these arguments, of course.]
At 05:17 PM 9/4/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>And let me play Devil's Advocate to this DA position:
>
>Not to sound overly Choatian, but there is nothing in the First Amendment
>which says anything about government getting to decide when "enough
be shut down.
This was the motivation for much of the Kremvax early remailing service,
which Julf later took over the code for. Sexual abuse, incest, rape,
shame, etc., drove these early systems.
It may be time to dust off these services as "covers." Anyone now
running a remailer could consider explicity announcing their religious
or psychiatric motivations.
Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers.
Happy Fun Court will not be amused that such "tricks" are being used to
head off an outlawing of anonymity tools. Fuck 'em.
--Tim May
13 matches
Mail list logo
