From: IN%"sheryl @
edu" "Sheryl Coppenger" 13-SEP-1996 18:47:33.92
>> not want. Currently, neither the U.S. government nor other governments pay
>> for email; therefore, they have no juristiction under the idea in question.
>Why do you think the government only has jurisdiction over things it
>pays for? You keep talking about *legitimate* services -- what protects
>people from the illegitimate ones?
My point was that I agree that you should be able to control email
coming in when it costs you money. Email, except to the given government,
does not typically cost a government money. Ergo, it is not in the above
category. How can people be protected from spamming through illegitimate
services? As soon as some patents expire, remailer are going to be able to
accept digital cash. It will cost people sending the mail to send it - and
it will cost a lot to do mass mailings. Currently, it wouldn't be that hard
to trace mass mailings that aren't going through the remailer network - e.g.,
ones going out from a particular spammer's machine. Some disguises can be
done, but sufficient effort can find them. That isn't the case with a proper
remailer network, and so it needs additional protections such as charging.
>I don't care that much whether or not just email is anonymous. I just don't
>want to receive it.
I was originally mailing, as most people seem to have forgotten,
to protest someone's proposal that all commercial email be non-anonymous, and
that fines, etcetera be exerted against anyone who made such mail anonymous.
Therefore, we don't seem to disagree on this point.
>?? I'm not sure how this fits in. My understanding of extradition treaties
>in general is that in order to get an extradition order the laws involved
>must be parallel. That is, blasphemy is not against the law in the US and
>so even if there was an extradition treaty there would be no grounds to
>extradite. However, if he had committed theft or murder and we had an
>extradition treaty with Iran there would be no problem -- if he chose to
>come to the United States under those conditions. My recollection is
>that he is a citizen of the UK and was living in London most of the time
>when that first happened and so what the US would do was moot. Also,
>some countries ban capital punishment and will not extradite a murderer
>to a place where he or she could be executed.
Rushdie was an example; I was proposing the hypothetical situation of
his being a US citizen and in the US. In the US, laws such as vs blasphemy
are prohibited by the Bill of Rights; thus, the Bill of Rights would be
protecting him from being extradited, in essence. (I believe, although - IANAL
- I am not sure, that courts have found in the US that extradition cannot
occur to a country in which liberties such as vs cruel and inhuman punishment
(e.g., torture) are not protected. This would add additional protection.)