[6823] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: injunction issued against cphack
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Sat Mar 18 11:14:22 2000
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: koontz@no_spam_ariolimax.com
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:07:46 -0500
Message-Id: <20000318160752.236B6ACAA9@smb.research.att.com>
In message <38D32C5C.211967F3@ariolimax.com>, "David G. Koontz" writes:
>I've seen conflicting reports on who the injunction affects.
>Is this a bit of FUD on the part of the attorney, or perhaps
>a misquote? I was also under the impression you had to be named
>in an injunction to be bound by it.
Well, the AP story had a different quote from the attorney, so it may be
reporter perception.
As for "being named" -- well, back around 1970 or 1972, when injunctions
against students occupying campus buildings were a favorite weapon, I asked
some lawyers about this. I was told that no, you did not have to be named
specifically to be bound by the injunction, and the injunction could legally
be served by someone standing outside the occupied building with a bullhorn...
But it's been 30 years, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'll step back and let
someone else who *knows* speak authoritatively on that subject.
--Steve Bellovin
