my remailer taking some (mild) heat [LONG]

For your edification:

I run a remailer.  Someone used it to post copyrighted material.  I was
contacted to help resolve the issue.  The person who contacted me, Brad
Templeton, was neither abusive nor unreasonable, but he did express some
interesting attitudes.  I am reposting the dialogue here.  My added
comments begin with '#'.

I must emphasize that I sympathize with Mr. Templeton and bear him no ill
will.  I am interested in his views---and your reaction to his views---of
remailers, their legality, and future.

##### Brad Templeton wrote: #####

Somebody posted an AP Wire story to comp.org.eff.talk using your
remailer.  We'll need to know who it was or have you contact them
so we can get them to make amends for the copyright violation.  Thanks.

##### I responded:: #####

Brad,

  # I included his initial message here

This is distressing to me.  I don't run a remailer to abet infringers of
copy (or other) rights.  I certainly do not condone this action. 
Unfortunately, there is little I can do after the fact.  My remailer is not
the sort that requires a priori relationships.  If a message has the right
sort of header, the remailer sends it on its way ... no questions asked.  I
never see any mail that passes through my remailer.  I keep no logs, the
efficacy of which would be compromised in any case by remailer chaining or
encryption.  I can block remailing to or from any particular address, but
my remailer is incapable of taking action based on content.  I am sorry
that I can neither tell you who it was, nor contact them ... not because I
don't wish to, but because I am unable to.

I will happily assist you in any way that I am able.  What follows is my
public policy with respect to the remailer.  It details my capabilities and
attitude.

  # I included my remailer policy here, which most of you have seen.
  # E-mail me privately for copies.

I hope this is of some assistance to you.

##### Brad Templeton wrote:: #####

I understand your policy, and I suspect that down the road that while
anon remailers will continue to exist and serve a purpose, those that allow
people to break laws behind them (defamation and copyright, and possibly
kiddie-porn in particular) will have to shut down.

The law is clear on this.  If a newspaper publishes libel, the newspaper
is liable with the writer, and fully liable if they hide the writer's
name.   You'll be in that boat, and shutting down or logging after the
fact won't do you much good.

I think the right answer is a remailer that logs, allows replies (like
the finet one) and which opens up in the case of illegal postings, or
any other postings that don't follow its rules.  It might say that
it demands a warrant, for example.

What you're doing is of little value.  Anybody can post anon to USENET
anyway, if they don't care about replies.  I am surprised you would
take the risk to add no functionality.

##### I responded: #####

Brad,

My immediate advice to you is to send mail to the same distribution that
the illegal material followed, requesting contact from the sender.  This
would have the same enforcability of reply as Julf's remailer.  People
rarely mail things to lists they don't themselves read, so it is likely to
be read by the intended.

As I said before, I will help you in any way that I can.

I understand that, lacking a perpetrator, I am the next visible target for
your ire ... so I am taking your comments as predictions about society (as
I'm sure you intended) rather than personal comments (as so many people are
wont to read into e-mail these days).

  # I included his first two paragraphs here.

My remailer is not a newspaper; rather it resembles the post-office, a
phone switch, or the hole in the tree trunk in "To Kill a Mockingbird". 
All of these allow communication with some amount of anonymity selected by
the sender (up to and including `no return address`).

Newspapers have editors.  There is a presumption of knowledge over their
content.  _Of course_ one sues such a publication for libel or error---they
have advertised their control over their publication so that readers may
trust in its verity and appropriateness.  One _must_ sue when such a
trusted publication causes damages.

Angry people can 'cement over the hole', but it won't be because my
remailer broke either faith or law.


  >I think the right answer is a remailer that logs,

Any phrase that starts with 'the right answer is' is questionable.  If
there were a 'right answer' for communication we would only need one of:
newspapers, phones, tv's, postcards, conversations in the hall, pounding a
broom handle on the ceiling, short-wave radio, ad infinitum.  The right
media depends on the situation and the people involved.


  >allows replies (like the finet one)

My remailer allows replies; the sender need only include a return address
(possibly encrypted) exactly like the US Post Office.  My service is
completely different from the finet one.  Julf's system requires its own
machine and huge space resources for mapping tables.  Such a system is
beyond my resources.


  >and which opens up in the case of illegal postings, or
  >any other postings that don't follow its rules.

My service conforms to this statement.  I was---and am now---happy to help
you resolve this issue to the best of my ability.  I won't support,
condone, or abet illegal activity; however, I can't and won't spy on law
abiding users on the slim chance that I could detect illegal activity a
priori.  I will enact restrictions that prevent illegal activity whenever I
can do so without impacting citizens (e.g., I can block addresses, etc.).


  >What you're doing is of little value.

It is unfortunate that your only contact with my remailer was of little (in
fact negative) value to you.  In in another situation you---as other people
certainly do---might value it highly.


  >Anybody can post anon to USENET anyway, if they don't care about replies.

My remailer makes no provisions for posting to usenet.  It is simply a
remailer; it can do nothing that sendmail cannot do.


  >I am surprised you would take the risk to add no functionality.

One if by land; two if by the information super-highway.


We're all together in this,

##### Brad Templeton wrote: #####

I thought it was for netnews, that is what I saw.  Actually, anybody can
do anon E-mail as well, but fewer know how.

You are not a newspaper, but I truly believe you are taking on all the
liability for bad things in the material remailed.

##### The End? #####


Scott Collins   | "That's not fair!"                         -- Sarah
                | "You say that so often.  I wonder what your basis
   408.862.0540 |  for comparison is."                 -- Goblin King
................|....................................................
BUSINESS.    fax:974.6094    R254(IL5-2N)    collins@newton.apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.  5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2D  Cupertino, CA 95014
.....................................................................
PERSONAL.    408.257.1746       1024:669687       catalyst@netcom.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hello, all!

The recent posting by Scott Collins about his remailer and the copyright
incident illustrates several problems with the remailer system as I see it.
I'll keep this brief, but I have a basic, low-level problem with all the
remailers I have seen so far - until this issue is resolved, I will never
have any faith in any remailer system whatsoever.

Every one of the remailers I have seen in operation so far provides a 
'real' address to the target system. That is, when (not if) someone is 
irritated by an anonymous posting, they have only to look in the message
header to get an address for their hate mail, legal action, mailbombs, etc.
This essentially co-opts the remailer operator along with the anonymous
poster with regard to content. (Yes, yes, I *know* that the remailers are
supposed to be 'anonymous Post Offices.') As Scott Collins' message 
explained, *he* (the remailer operator) is taking the heat for the alleged
copyright violation, and his correspondent is not terribly impressed with
Scott's protestations of innocence. Since Scott indicated that he keeps
no logs, he is the sole target; this is grossly unfair to an individual
who is trying to provide a service. (Yes, yes, 'Life ain't fair,' but 
sooner or later you're going to run out of martyrs who are willing to 
take the fall for abuses of their remailers...)

Converseley, there may exist a set of remailer operators that *do* keep 
logs for the express purpose of dodging the bullet in cases like Scott's;
if a message went through that generated enough heat, that sort of remailer
operator would waste no time in compromising the poster's identity to 
get out of the hot seat.

In my mind, then, the solution to these problems requires remailers that
leave *no trace* of message origins, including the address of the remailer
itself. If this is not possible, then I for one will employ other means
for anonymous communication.

This is not intended to present any specific remailer operator or group
of operators in a bad light; in fact, I was particularly impressed by 
Scott's indication that he did not keep logs. I throw out these thoughts
in the hope that they will be considered by the authors of remailer software.

- --
........................................................................
Philippe D. Nave, Jr.   | Strong Crypto: Don't leave $HOME without it!
pdn@dwroll.dw.att.com   | 
Denver, Colorado USA    | PGP public key: by arrangement.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLbQJTgvlW1K2YdE1AQHcjwP6A/tU0zqYq49uh737+BsPMru+YKzWdri5
hgZHxi7r8+yLJKrntqRXUyKGCB2W6dBQ+n6jeOzb6/yXxbYTZ+8nLBpCi2f4ruVb
8j+wbiASs2XTwQv/Vdqfgflpjc28xKRudmZMDOhrf5k8Mh4VLQqAr9vZ6jOyIZRY
mZCnJt6BW/U=
=lnKI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 19 Apr 1994, Philippe Nave wrote:

> Every one of the remailers I have seen in operation so far provides a 
> 'real' address to the target system. That is, when (not if) someone is 
> irritated by an anonymous posting, they have only to look in the message
> header to get an address for their hate mail, legal action, mailbombs, etc.
> This essentially co-opts the remailer operator along with the anonymous
> poster with regard to content. (Yes, yes, I *know* that the remailers are
> supposed to be 'anonymous Post Offices.') As Scott Collins' message 
> explained, *he* (the remailer operator) is taking the heat for the alleged
> copyright violation, and his correspondent is not terribly impressed with
> Scott's protestations of innocence. Since Scott indicated that he keeps
> no logs, he is the sole target; this is grossly unfair to an individual
> who is trying to provide a service. (Yes, yes, 'Life ain't fair,' but 
> sooner or later you're going to run out of martyrs who are willing to 
> take the fall for abuses of their remailers...)

I disagree with Brad's interpretation.  For example, if I photocopy a 
book and anonymously snail mail it to people, do you think the postal 
service is going to take the fall?  Nope - they are just a carrier, and 
are not responsible for content.  Like the common carriers - they just 
receive a message and pass it along.  They aren't responsible for message 
content.  If Brad Templeton's view of the world was the prevailing (or 
correct) one, then every common carrier in the country, including Ma Bell 
and the US Postal Service, would not exist, because they would've been 
sued out of existence long ago.

Of course, this situation illustrates yet another interesting twist on 
the old "denial of service" attacks... I understand Brad's interest in 
making money from Clarinet's product (and I don't have a problem with him 
making money), but I think that this "scare tactic" is going a bit too 
far in protecting corporate revenue.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3		ecarp@netcom.com		519/824-3307
	             	      an88744@anon.penet.fi
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Ed Carp writes :
> 
> On Tue, 19 Apr 1994, Philippe Nave wrote:
> 
> > [concern about traceability of messages sent through remailers, and
> >  involvement of remailer operators in investigations]
>
> 
> I disagree with Brad's interpretation.  For example, if I photocopy a 
> book and anonymously snail mail it to people, do you think the postal 
> service is going to take the fall?  Nope - they are just a carrier, and 
> are not responsible for content.  Like the common carriers - they just 
> receive a message and pass it along.  They aren't responsible for message 
> content.  If Brad Templeton's view of the world was the prevailing (or 
> correct) one, then every common carrier in the country, including Ma Bell 
> and the US Postal Service, would not exist, because they would've been 
> sued out of existence long ago.
> 

The analogy comparing an anonymous remailer to the Postal Service breaks
down at a key point, I think. The USPS is not held liable if I Xerox a 
book and mail it to someone, but the Postal Inspectors *are* expected to
cooperate fully with law enforcement interests when such behavior is 
investigated. If we limit the discussion to content alone, there is not
really any difference between an anonymous remailer and Netcom - if I
send something I shouldn't through both systems, neither would logically
be held responsible for the content.

[This distinction was muddled in my original posting; the following is
an attempt to clarify my position. A thousand pardons...]

The anonymous remailer is supposed to be (as its name implies) a method
for transferring data from one point to another with no identifying 
labels as to the origin of the data. Removing the original poster's 
ID and (essentially) replacing it with the remailer operator's ID 
does not accomplish a whole lot, in my view. When questions are raised
about objectionable postings, the Internet community actually follows
the 'Post Office' analogy closely, expecting the 'postmaster' to assist
in the investigation. *This* is where the remailer operator becomes a 
martyr; the very nature of the remailer paradigm precludes the collection
of data that would aid the investigation. We can debate whether it is
reasonable for the Internet community to expect this sort of help, but
we ourselves saw nothing wrong with asking (for example) Detweiler's 
postmaster to get his ravings off the Net. 

So, then, the remailer operator must walk an ethical tightrope - since
the remailer is not truly anonymous (in the sense that messages simply
*cannot* be traced), the operator must balance the ideal of anonymous
communication against the realities of Internet connectivity. If I
want to communicate anonymously without worrying about attacks on the
remailer operator, it would seem that *complete* anonymity is required.
Then, messages could be encrypted and bounced among remailers without
exposure to the 'Achilles' Heel' address of the last remailer in the
chain.

- -- 
........................................................................
Philippe D. Nave, Jr.   | Strong Crypto: Don't leave $HOME without it!
pdn@dwroll.dw.att.com   | 
Denver, Colorado USA    | PGP public key: by arrangement.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLbRHagvlW1K2YdE1AQEy6QQAxNuAdN9BYfiB8C7KmeNl3UeTUP2lE5K/
HQE+2AQzY7VdHGYSmPEevqneUqYhyKTu8QfM+M9hcIaNH4VyU1Y54ylqs+zKU+E5
WXYkJPH6/6a648ZAmM3jRi+mX1tNr4qIZGAiHMN7Nm0eNkYNkEuxEh05uYqkjKa3
67cddDb/NOM=
=IgsE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I understand your objections, but think about it this way: nothing in the 
world says that you have to put a return address on the envelope.  
Nothing in the world says that you have to present any form of ID in 
order to drop a letter into a postal box.  Sure, the postal inspectors 
have to "cooperate", but if you drop a letter with no return address into 
a box, how could they trace it back to you?  Are people going to say to 
the US postal folks, "hey, it's *your* fault that they didn't put a 
return address on their envelope!"  I think not.

Similarly, I think that anonymous remailers, like the post office, ma 
bell, etc., are common carriers.  You can't have it both ways - either 
you are a common carrier and exercise no editorial control over what goes 
through your remailer, or you are a publisher, and are held to a certain 
degree of legal responsibility.

Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3		ecarp@netcom.com		519/824-3307
	             	      an88744@anon.penet.fi
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"