Re: mutt no longer in non-us?
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication privacy
> act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
The ECPA doesn't prevent police from seizing computer hardware when they
have a warrant, although it would be fun if it did.
> I'll personally go as far as to say interferance with the free distribution
> of software that I've written myself represents a severe and criminal
> violation of my civil rights. DJB seems to agree with me, but his case is
> still under appeal.
Professor Bernstein has taken a different approach, in that he has refrained
from distribution of Snuffle (although it's available from various places
now) and filed a lawsuit in which he seeks injunctions against prosecution.
(He says that the _existence_ of certain regulations is a violation of his
rights -- a facial challenge. It's amazing that he is succeeding so far,
because courts rarely approve of such reasoning.)
Your version seems to be to publish software and, if you are prosecuted or
otherwise given trouble, argue that your rights have been violated.
If Professor Bernstein continues to win his case, the precedent it sets
could be very helpful for programmers in general -- who could try to use
it to argue that government interference with the free software development
process was grounds for a first amendment lawsuit. :-)
Seth David Schoen <email@example.com> | And do not say, I will study when I
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5