🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <eifrig.675550113@voronoi.cs.jhu.edu>, by eifrig@cs.jhu.edu (Jack Eifrig):

>>No, USENET is not a RIGHT.  It is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked for
>>abuse, just like driving a car.
> 
> 	These kind of statements really annoy me.  What do you mean, "it's
> a privilege"?  Do you mean that only people of royal blood can drive cars 
> or post to Usenet or some such nonsense?  While I'm sure that certain 
> elements of the government would like to think that they can revoke 
> people's driving licenses without due process, people get very unhappy 
> when it attempts such.

So the problem here isn't  what was done.  The problem is what is 
considered "due process" in usenet.

Use of the Usenet is definately a privilege.  No one has the RIGHT to 
electronic mail, (even though some people I know may want Usenet to be 
classified as a basic human right #8-)  If it is a fee based system, and you
don't pay your fees, then you are kicked off the system.  If you purposely
violate the posted rules for proper behaviour on the system, then you are
kicked off the system.  This ain't no democracy.  The equipment is owned 
and operated and paid for by the owners of the equipment.  If someone is
sending pyramid mail, or envolved in other activities which could result in
MY machine being confiscated, then damn rights I'm going to turf the user.

I run a Fidonet BBS (not a Usenet node).  I have to be VERY careful about 
the traffic on the BBS.  For example, no business messages otherwise the
telephone company will consider me a "business" and charge higher rates.  

I also have to ensure that my board doesn't turn into a "Pirate" board. The
government would be quite happy to confiscate my equipment if they thought 
that I was aiding a criminal in illegal activities, like violating copyright,
etc.  This can be as simple as two users sending mail explaining how to crack
copyrighted programs, or advertising that they will give away copies of their
copyrighted program to people who ask ...

I handle it this way.  First, there are NO anonymous postings.  I verify 
everyone before they can post on the newsgroups or use email.  That cuts down
on a lot of the juvenile behaviour I see from free-for-all public access
places.

I also post clearly in my policies for the BBS that there is no such thing 
as private mail on the bbs.  EVERY message can be viewed by the sysop.  That
is not to say that it WILL be viewed, but it gives me the right to examine
mail to ensure that my BBS is not being used illegally and thus putting me
and my equipment in legal danger.  My users understand this, and I have had no 
problems.

The bottom line is that to handle these situations, make sure everyone knows
the rules in advance.  Set a policy for your node.  Make it a condition of
service that before anyone gets an account, they MUST read the policy.
Once that is done, then its a simple matter.  If someone violates the policy,
then they get disconnected.  No appeals, no arguments.  It's all in black and
white.

There is no RIGHT for ANYONE to do ANYTHING on my system.  I own it, I make up
the rules.  I decide who can use it, I decide who can't.  If my rules are
too restrictive, then users can get access on another machine.  

So far this has worked fine.  I am in no way a monopoly here.  There's a lot
of systems available for people to use.  If my restrictions were too severe, 
then they have plenty other places to go.   The point is that they haven't. 
They recognise that its my machine, and they agree that my rules are 
reasonable, so they keep coming back.

If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to
control how his computer is used.  Its exactly the same as the bus driver who
has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem.  
Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how
badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal
the bus, and use it to rob a bank.  If someone is trying to use MY equipment
in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those
people off *MY* computer.

- Kevin Lowey

In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes:
>
>Use of the Usenet is definately a privilege.  No one has the RIGHT to 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uhmmm, well wait a minute! I don't think that this is necessarily 
true. No one has the right to deny anyone else access to USENET, only
to a particular machine.

>I run a Fidonet BBS (not a Usenet node).  I have to be VERY careful about 
>the traffic on the BBS.  For example, no business messages otherwise the
>telephone company will consider me a "business" and charge higher rates.  
>

Then cancel any articles that come into your machine that are business
related. Don't have your feed site send you the biz. and ads. groups.


> [.. descriptions of rules on his bbs]

>There is no RIGHT for ANYONE to do ANYTHING on my system.  I own it, I make up
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are correct. Its your box, no one can tell you how to run it. All I'm
saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. If some
site consistently posts stuff you don't like, put them in your system-wide
killfile.
 
>
>If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>control how his computer is used.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bravo. Again, this means of course, that you have no RIGHT to tell any 
other sysop what she can and cannot allow to be posted and exported from
her system. Again, if you don't like the stuff coming off her system, 
put it in your kill-file but don't think that you have a RIGHT to TELL
ANYONE ELSE what they can and cannot allow on their system.

>- Kevin Lowey

Also, some people are claiming that "certain things should be prohibited
because they may pass through the NSFNet as it may be inappropriate for
that net." I put it to you that the only way it would be legal for NSFNet 
to limit USENET content would be to disallow all of USENET from NSFNet
facilities.  Why - because NSFNet is a government funded animal. 1st
Amendment says that the govt. CANNOT stifle free speech. Therefore NSFNet
cannot dictate the content of USENET postings (except of course, where 
allowed by laws such as transmitting stolen property, some material of
a purient nature, etc).  NSFNet can say "USENET as a whole violates the
conditions of use of the NSFNet, so off it goes.." Thats what drives many
of these doomsday fanatics insane. (Iminent Death of USENET Predicted (tm))

Peace,
John Palmer
-- 
CAT-TALK Conferencing System   |  "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL:
+1 313 343 0800 (USR HST)      |   child. Trust me - I'm a   | jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP)  |   professional..."          | 
********EIGHT NODES*********** |   -- Roger Rabbit           | 

In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes:
>If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to
>control how his computer is used.  Its exactly the same as the bus driver who
>has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem.  
>Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how
>badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal
>the bus, and use it to rob a bank.  If someone is trying to use MY equipment
>in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those
>people off *MY* computer.

And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in the
back of the bus.  Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's notion
of what is "improper".  You cannot restrict the activities based upon
sex, race, religion, creed, etc...

Stephen
-- 
Stephen L Nicoud  <snicoud@boeing.com>  uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud
Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science
Bellevue, Washington  USA

Concerning whether USENET/EMAIL/NEWS/etc are a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE:

Does it have to be one or the other?  How about neither?  Or Both?
Maybe it ought to be viewed it as a SERVICE, that was bought and
paid-for.

Consider wanting to see a movie.  I pay an fee with the explicit
understanding/contract that a service is provided for me.  Is that a
right or a privilege?  I guess that once the fee is paid, I have a
right to use the service under the terms upon which the fee was made.

Just some idle thinking... (of course, when I start thinking, that's
when I get in trouble :-)

Stephen
-- 
Stephen L Nicoud  <snicoud@boeing.com>  uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud
Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science
Bellevue, Washington  USA

In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>                                                                  All I'm
>saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems.

this from tygra/ddmi/michigan.com ?

he must be learning.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer  jim@lsuc.On.Ca  || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim    +1 416 947-5258 ]
[ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA  ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[      The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer     ]

According to jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer):
>All I'm saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems.

Oh, so I shouldn't post netwide cancel messages?  Good advice, that.

>NSFNet is a government funded animal. 1st Amendment says that the govt.
>CANNOT stifle free speech.

 ... naw.  It's too easy.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
          perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; }   do do()'

In article <48332@bcsaic.UUCP> sincoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes:
>Concerning whether USENET/EMAIL/NEWS/etc are a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE:
>
>Does it have to be one or the other?  How about neither?  Or Both?
>Maybe it ought to be viewed it as a SERVICE, that was bought and
>paid-for.

who are you paying?

you are not paying USENET.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer  jim@lsuc.On.Ca  || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim    +1 416 947-5258 ]
[ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA  ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[      The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer     ]

In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>Again, if you don't like the stuff coming off her system, 
>put it in your kill-file but don't think that you have a RIGHT to TELL
>ANYONE ELSE what they can and cannot allow on their system.

THIS IS WRONG.  Simple examples:
	1) Canceling other people's articles.  You, Mr. John Palmer, are
	   guilty of this.
	2) Posting 100's or large articles that are copies of core
	   files that you generate.
	3) Postings that are illegal.  If your system generates
	   articles that are illegal, then my system may be liable for
	   passing them on if I knew about them and didn't do anything
	   to prevent them.

I could come up with others, Mr. John Palmer, but you obviously never
listen to anybody anyway.

Warner
-- 
Warner Losh		imp@Solbourne.COM
Free to a good home: 10,000 Miller Moths.  Must promise not to breed them.

Wait a minute ...

[sorry folks -- no LONG quotes of other's messages quoting other's
 messages ad infinitum -- maybe you'll all emulate me? :-) ]

Driving is a privilege?  Posting articles is a privilege?  That's a 
very interesting point:  who decided it was a privilege?  

I mean, _someone_ had to start all this "news" initially, right?  Now
it's *everywhere* on a *lot* of systems.  Ditto for vehicles:  initially
they were very rare and a novelty.  E-mail and "news" is becoming 
*very* common.

So, who decides to whom the privilege is given?  Do individual 
systems administrators get to decide what they think the users of
their system need to read?  Is it a higher level decision?  Should
the *government* scan _all_ the incoming "news" to see if the views
violate federal law before the "news" is forwarded to federally funded 
educational facilities?

All the news that's fit to print?

See the problem?  This is a brand new area that hasn't been subjected
to any kind of legal scrutiny ...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
mcmahan@cs.unca.edu for those of you who think in base 2
Scott McMahan  to the rest.  As always: #include "stddisclaimer.h"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
^-- Look! I only signed it *once* ! :-)

In article <whichever>  Kevin Lowey mentions that he runs a BBS 
on which he can do whatever he pleases.  This is not meant as
scarasm, just necessary to make my point:  Is it equipped for
the handicapped?

Sure, if you own your *own* computer, you can do whatever you want
with it.  Try denying access to a black person sometime!  You are 
_still_ subject to _some_ laws!  If you *did* deny access, and if
the person decided to take it to court, you'd be in *hot water* .

And if you received any federal funds, and wanted to *continue*
receiving them, then you'd do what the government required when you
set your policy!

Even private things like apartment complexes owned by private business
must go along with the government (or loose a *lot* of things like
subsidized insurance, even if they don't get direct federal money) .
A bus driver employed by the *city* couldn't kick someone off his bus!
Or if Greyhound got *any* kind of federal assistance, and a driver violated 
federal law, it wouldn't be cut and dried.

Usenet may be privately owned, and may set their policy, 
but as I said -- if they say "No Asians have a RIGHT to use our
computers to take over America"  I'll be it wouldn't be their policy
for long! :-)

*You* don't have the right to use YOUR computer if it violates the 
law!

Or your bus, or whatever ...

Scary?

#include "stddisclaimer.h"
#include "signature.h"

Scott McMahan
 

In <1991Jun1.174136.6258@rock.concert.net>
   mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes:

>Sure, if you own your *own* computer, you can do whatever you want
>with it.  Try denying access to a black person sometime!  You are 
>_still_ subject to _some_ laws!  If you *did* deny access, and if
>the person decided to take it to court, you'd be in *hot water* .

Certainly not if there were other reasons for the owner to reject
access. e.g. He's the founding member of the secret "Computer Chaos
in Government Society".

Being in a minority doesn't automatically give people extra rights,
does it? (It appears to because we don't wish to "offend".)

>Usenet may be privately owned, and may set their policy, 
>but as I said -- if they say "No Asians have a RIGHT to use our
>computers to take over America"  I'll be it wouldn't be their policy
>for long! :-)

Gee, they sure wouldn't have rules like that around here :-)
-- 
Bernd Felsche,                 _--_|\   #include <std/disclaimer.h>
Metapro Systems,              / sold \  Fax:   +61 9 472 3337
328 Albany Highway,           \_.--._/  Phone: +61 9 362 9355
Victoria Park,  Western Australia   v   Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au

In article <1991Jun1.174136.6258@rock.concert.net> mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes:
> Sure, if you own your *own* computer, you can do whatever you want
> with it.  Try denying access to a black person sometime!  You are 
> _still_ subject to _some_ laws!  If you *did* deny access, and if
> the person decided to take it to court, you'd be in *hot water* .

Is US law really in the position where you can't choose how to use
private property?  Not company, or state, or federal, but private?  If
it isn't, do you think it should be?

ian

In article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP>, snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes...
>In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes:
>>If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to
>>control how his computer is used.  Its exactly the same as the bus driver who
>>has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem.  
>>Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how
>>badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal
>>the bus, and use it to rob a bank.  If someone is trying to use MY equipment
>>in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those
>>people off *MY* computer.

>And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in the
>back of the bus.  Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's notion
>of what is "improper".  You cannot restrict the activities based upon
>sex, race, religion, creed, etc...

This was one of my early disagreements with the violation of rights 
movement.  If it were a government subsidized bus, then fine, prohibit them 
from discriminating.  If a person uses his own earnings to pay for 
something, it should be his - to have and hold - i.e. to control without 
interference from others (until and unless it is used to attack someone 
else).

In article <1991May31.133601.17606@lsuc.on.ca>, jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes...

>>Concerning whether USENET/EMAIL/NEWS/etc are a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE:

>who are you paying?

>you are not paying USENET.

But don't you see.  That's just the problem.  There's no well-defined 
ownership rights in netland.

In article <1991Jun1.172809.6198@rock.concert.net>, mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes...

>Wait a minute ...

>[sorry folks -- no LONG quotes of other's messages quoting other's
> messages ad infinitum -- maybe you'll all emulate me? :-) ]

>Driving is a privilege?  Posting articles is a privilege?  That's a 
>very interesting point:  who decided it was a privilege?  

The first I heard this allegation regarding driving was about 12 years ago. 
 Can you imagine George Washington or Ben Franklin going down to the 
government office to get a permit to drive a wagon on the street.  Now, 
before you say "But cars and trucks are so much more dangerous." explain 
the hundreds of thousands of horse-related injuries that took place in the 
1890s.