[92878] in Cypherpunks
Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert A. Costner)
Fri Jan 9 01:03:16 1998
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:41:25 -0500
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <v03007801b0db5ae481c8@[204.254.20.36]>
Reply-To: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
At 11:42 PM 1/8/98 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>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.
I think it would be pretty hard to distinguish the Cracker Remailer from an
Internet presence provider. If hotmail or tripod were to be covered under
the CDA, then I would have to think Cracker would be as well.
EFGA/Cracker offers accounts, has dedicated servers, and has no editorial
control over content. At around 20,000 individual messages per week, I'd
have to say we are as good of a small online service as anyone else - even
if we only offer specialized services. Many ISPs only have 100 or so users
and only about 1/6 of the connectivity of Cracker.
-- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746
Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh@efga.org
http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key
