Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: encrypted mail
Message-ID: <672@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 15:41:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.672
Posted: Wed May 29 15:41:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 23:44:19 EDT
References: <4173@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 37

Unfortunately, the legal issues surrounding responsibility for passing
traffic by third parties who are not common carriers are very cloudy,
which complicates the entire situation.  My own suspicion is that many
sites would feel VERY nervous about seeing megabytes of miscellaneous
encrypted material flowing through their system.  The fact that they
don't usually bother to look at pass-through is beside the point--
the point is that they always can if they need to get a handle
on how their system is being used and abused.  From a legal standpoint
in case of lawsuits, this can be very important.  For example, let's
say that someone's publisher decided to sue the sites that were
distributing their columns w/o permission.  Since most of the sites are NOT
common carriers and would be unable to attain such status, their only
protection against such activities would be to try block (through some
sort of filtering, either automatic or manual) the "illicit" messages.

If traffic were encrypted, they would be unable to do this, and their
willingness to pass messages under such conditions could be deemd
"recklessness" by the courts.  When you're a common carrier it's
another matter--you have some additional protections.  But in an
informal network like we've got here, the vast majority of sites
would not have such protections and would be unable to attain it, thusly
leaving them exceedingly vulnerable to abuse and suit. 

--Lauren--

P.S.  The fact that message filtering does not occur now is also
beside the point.  The issue here is that it would be technically
possible to make what the courts would call a "good faith" effort
to block illicit messages if necessary, IF those messages 
are in the clear.  If you're not a common carrier, I suspect that
you are still taking implicit responsibility for all traffic you send
to other sites.  The fact that you don't look at it may be, from a legal
standpoint, your own fault--you still may well be responsible for it.
In any case, this issue is probably worth careful consideration and
investigation.

--LW--