Black Unicorn wrote: > > "Knowingly concealing or attempting to conceal the proceeds of a crime" is a > concept that is a good start. Can "common carrier" status be achieved? If you claim to be promoting simple high-quality privacy then you could plausibly deny "knowingly or attempting to conceal ... crime". Under the same statutes the phone company could be prosecuted for "money laundering" if they refused to provide taps to suspected criminals. Maybe? Jim
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity dmolnar
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity R. A. Hettinga
- remailer reliability and security (Re: Payment mi... adam
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity James A. Donald
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Secret Squirrel
- Re: Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Jim Choate
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Daniel J. Boone
- Re: Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Jim Choate
- Re: Re: Payment mixes for anonymity dmolnar
- Mixes or Laundering? Re: Payment mixes fo... Black Unicorn
- Re: Mixes or Laundering? Re: Payment... Jim Burnes
- Re: Mixes or Laundering? Re: Pay... dmolnar
- Re: Re: Mixes or Laundering? Re:... R. A. Hettinga
- Re: Lessig Craig Brozefsky
- Re: Re: Mixes or Laundering? Re:... Eric Murray
- Re: Re: Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Jim Choate
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Secret Squirrel
- Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Tim May
- Re: Re: Payment mixes for anonymity Daniel J. Boone