[92874] in Cypherpunks
Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Fri Jan 9 00:20:33 1998
In-Reply-To: <199801090251.DAA10017@basement.replay.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 23:42:50 -0500
To: nobody@replay.com (Anonymous)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Sure. That provision of the CDA was not meant to apply to remailer
operators but online services, which cut a deal on that bill. Prosecutors
would point, I suspect, to legislative intent and say remailer operators
aren't covered; they'd say the text of the law is not unambiguous.
It is not an impenetrable shield against time in Club Fed.
-Declan
At 03:51 +0100 1/9/98, Anonymous wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>> I would be very afraid of relying on the CDA's immunizing provisions as my
>> sole defense against prosecution, conviction, and jail time, were I a
>> remailer operator.
>Could you clarify what you mean by that?
