NODE d7027839Re: "Got a subpoena?"
"Jeff Hupp" <jhupp@novellnet.gensys.com>Sat, 2 Dec 1995 14:58:11 +0800
On 30 Nov 95 at 12:56, Jay Campbell wrote:
: >> "finessing" laws will become more important. In short, they WILL have
: >> a subpoena--then what?
: >
: > Then they'll find out that I don't have any information that
: >could help them, anyway.
:
: What about a court order to (a) start comprehensive logging, and (b) not
: tell anyone under penalty of ______ .
And at that point, you shut down the remailer and log each and every
bounce.
Now, they could get an order forcing you to run a remailer ~ but that
would open up a whole new can of worms i.e. can you be forced, under
court order, to commit a crime?
--
JHupp@gensys.com |For PGP Public Key:
http://gensys.com |finger jhupp@gensys.com
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser
than a million men. How's that again? I missed something.
NODE 202ebba6Re: "Got a subpoena?"
Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>Fri, 1 Dec 1995 22:07:24 +0800
On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Jeff Hupp wrote:
> And at that point, you shut down the remailer and log each and every
> bounce.
>
> Now, they could get an order forcing you to run a remailer ~ but that
> would open up a whole new can of worms i.e. can you be forced, under
> court order, to commit a crime?
No. I'm sure someone will come up with an exception, but generally no.
You can't be drafted into the FBI. Then there's the 13th amendment
argument ...
EBD
>
> --
> JHupp@gensys.com |For PGP Public Key:
> http://gensys.com |finger jhupp@gensys.com
> Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser
> than a million men. How's that again? I missed something.
>
>
Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!