Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!hplabs!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Reading other peoples' mail
Message-ID: <3093@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Apr-86 03:47:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.3093
Posted: Tue Apr 29 03:47:07 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 2-May-86 06:35:56 EDT
References: <37000002@hplabsc.UUCP> <919@vortex.UUCP>
Reply-To: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, UTS Products Group
Lines: 33
Summary: ... then the courts are wrong

In article <919@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes:

> Given the fluidity of this situation, and impending new laws which
> may complicate the situation even further, it would seem best
> to avoid, whenever possible, putting third parties in the position
> of possible problems.  I recommend against passing encrypted materials
> through intermediate sites unless you have the explicit (written!)
> permission from those sites to do so. 

Laws that inhibit the free flow of information in a securely encrypted
form are a threat to the Freedom of Speech and the implied freedom of
communication.

By all means, use encrypted mail whenever possible, as it is your only
guarentee of privacy in transit.

A judge who would claim that a courier holds responsability for what
the message says is nothing more than a naive re-statement of the old
stories about killing the bearer of bad news ....

> But of course, there's a far simpler solution.  If you have something
> really private to say to someone else, either don't send it via e-mail
> or set up a direct link to that person's site.
> 
> --Lauren--

Here we both strongly agree.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam

Moderation in all things, including moderation.
--
[ This does not represent Amdahl Corporation ]