Re: Anonymous remailers mentioned in CDA decision

The right to anonymity on the Net got a big boost during the Q&A at the
ACLU press conference here in NYC on the CDA win -- with a recitation of
its distinguished history in assuring freedom of speech and political
activity. As did the corollary right to strong encryption to assure
protection from intruders of gov-biz-jealous-lovers of all stripes. 
 
 
The CDA decision is a wondrous read for its coverage of so many topics
discussed here; each judge's opinion is separately admirable. 
 
 
And, based, on the remarks of panelists at the conference, it will surely
advance privacy protection measures and support loosening of crypto
controls. 
 
 
But still subject to the unpredictable Supremes, a Solomon cautioned, if
DoJ elects to appeal.

jya@pipeline.com (John Young) writes:
> But still subject to the unpredictable Supremes, a Solomon cautioned, if
> DoJ elects to appeal.

This statute's language pretty much forces DOJ to appeal, even if they think
the law sucks.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 12-Jun-96 Re: Anonymous remailers
men.. by Dr.Dimitri V. KOTM@bwalk 
> This statute's language pretty much forces DOJ to appeal, even if they think
> the law sucks.

What, precisely, in the statute's language *forces* the DoJ to appeal?

It is the Solicitor General's decision. At close of business today, the
DoJ still hadn't told me whether they would or not. But we expect they
will.

-Declan

Given the extraordinaryly good findings of facts, the government will have
a very very tough time on appeal.  Shows you what fine lawyering can do.


On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 12-Jun-96 Re: Anonymous remailers
> men.. by Dr.Dimitri V. KOTM@bwalk 
> > This statute's language pretty much forces DOJ to appeal, even if they think
> > the law sucks.
> 
> What, precisely, in the statute's language *forces* the DoJ to appeal?
> 
> It is the Solicitor General's decision. At close of business today, the
> DoJ still hadn't told me whether they would or not. But we expect they
> will.
> 
> -Declan
> 

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.  And humid.

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Michael Froomkin wrote:

> Given the extraordinaryly good findings of facts, the government will have
> a very very tough time on appeal.  Shows you what fine lawyering can do.

I, usually a judicial cynic, found the job done by the panel in terms of
findings and judicially noted facts astoundingly complete.

This case has really restored my faith in the ability of the judicial
system to absorb new technologies- not because of the result itself, but
because of the care and weight given to the process.

As Professor Froomkin indicated, appeal will be exceedingly difficult.
Not only are the findings of fact very detailed and extensive, but because
this case did not involve a prosecution, there is no direct way to
point to the evil criminal in a specific, rather than general way.

I think they would be unwise to appeal, but I can also see where the
political considerations would override that basic logic.

I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find out what (if anything) is in
the works.

---
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

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> I think they would be unwise to appeal, but I can also see where the
> political considerations would override that basic logic.
> 

The unstated assumption, of course, is that the Justice Dept was really
trying to win...  One wondered, at times...

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | 
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.  And humid.

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Michael Froomkin wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > I think they would be unwise to appeal, but I can also see where the
> > political considerations would override that basic logic.
> > 
> 
> The unstated assumption, of course, is that the Justice Dept was really
> trying to win...  One wondered, at times...

Excellent point, though I think this would have been a personal decision
on the part of the parties involved rather than a institutional one.

---
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