>On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Zoli Fekete, keeper of hungarian-faq wrote:
>> However, it could be argued (*IF* email is considered equivalent to fax)
>> that a valid email return-address is equivalent to having the phone
>> number. Regardless, the argument appeared fairly weak on the many Usenet
>> and Internet fora where it's been discussed.
>Very weak. You have to convince the judge that one part of the statute
>must be read literally in order to capture your definition of "telephone
>fax machine," while another portion must be read non-literally, to
>capture your definition of "telephone number," and all the while making
>sure he doesn't pay any attention to the fact that email never came up in
>the discussion of the bills when they were reviewed on the floor and in
>the committees.
There's also the problem that this would outlaw all anonymous
email that didn't have a return-address mechanism (something that
weakens anonymization significantly, unless the judge would be willing
to consider a mail-to-news gateway to alt.anonymous.messages a valid
return address), and anonymous communications have been protected by the
Supreme Court, IIRC, using the Federalist Papers as a prime example of
anonymous communications that _must_ be protected.
-Allen
P.S. Terry, could you include the email address of the person to whom you're
replying when you do so? I'd have preferred to just send this to the two
of you instead of to the entire list. I realize that some mailreaders don't
work right on this.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved