Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns

At 12:10 AM 5/25/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From:	IN%"unicorn@schloss.li"  "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 22:52:03.64
>
>>Remailers on the attack points (first in chain, last in chain) simply MUST
>>be disposable as tissue.  They must be run as anonymously as possible,
>>with as little connection to the ISP's assets as possible and immediately
>>disposable.  They must be easy to set up, runable without root and there
>>must be a much more efficent tracking mechanism.  (Mr. Levin has done a
>>terrific job, but even more needs to be done).
>
>	Why the first in chain? If the anti-traffic-analysis provisions are
>working properly, it should be impossible to prove that a given first remailer
>was the first remailer for any particular message. I had thought that even
>civil courts required that you be the person who committed some act, not the
>person who _might_ have committed some act. Otherwise, all the remailers are
>in danger. This is even if someone tries an entrapment by sending through some
>illegal material - if the courts accept that they should be allowed to do this,
>then all the remailers they chained are going to be hit.

Likewise, I don't see why the first address in the chain is vulnerable, as 
long as the message subsequently passes through at least one trustworthy 
remailer, and probably  a temporary output address.  



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 12:10 AM 5/25/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
> >From:	IN%"unicorn@schloss.li"  "Black Unicorn" 24-MAY-1996 22:52:03.64

> >	Why the first in chain? If the anti-traffic-analysis provisions are
> >working properly, it should be impossible to prove that a given first remailer
> >was the first remailer for any particular message. I had thought that even
> >civil courts required that you be the person who committed some act, not the
> >person who _might_ have committed some act. Otherwise, all the remailers are
> >in danger. This is even if someone tries an entrapment by sending through some
> >illegal material - if the courts accept that they should be allowed to do this,
> >then all the remailers they chained are going to be hit.
> 
> Likewise, I don't see why the first address in the chain is vulnerable, as 
> long as the message subsequently passes through at least one trustworthy 
> remailer, and probably  a temporary output address.  

I repeat, all it takes is one person to send through only one remailer
(perhaps even a Co$ plant) and the first in chain remailer is toasted.

Think before you type please.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com