🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes:
>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.
>
>	[comments concerning Usenet deleted.]
>
>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 ...

	This brings up a very interesting point: the rights of Sysops to
monitor their traffic and their liabilities if their users engage in illegal
activity.  Now recent Federal legislation makes it clear that if I'm a com-
mercial e-mail gateway, I don't have the blanket legal authority to monitor
electronic traffic through my system.  On the other hand, seizures of systems
(alluded to above) seems to imply that the enforcement arm of the government
intends to hold the operator of a gateway _liable_ for any illegal activity
connected with its operation.  Does anyone have any info. about how the
courts intend to resolve this conflict?

>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.  

	Don't be too sure that you have the right to just decide whom you
will allow to use your system; this is clearly not absolute.  For example,
you will get into trouble if you try to restrict access to your BBS to only
white people, say, or men only.  These are obviously blatant examples, but
I'm not sure where the line is.

>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.

	Again, I wouldn't bet the house on this.  If I were running an adult-
oriented BBS in San Francisco (where there is a strong gay-rights ordinance in
effect, I believe) and I refused to allow any gay-oriented traffic on my system,
I'd imagine that I'd get into trouble.

	The legal waters in this area are murky and uncharted.  Unfortunately,
there's very little guidance available for Sysops.  In other words:

	"Good luck Jim!  As always, if you or any member of your IM force
are captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your
actions.  This message will self-destruct in five seconds ...."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	"Everyone who becomes a lawyer must be mentally defective by nature
or bound to become so in time."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------