Human-Nets-Request@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles McGrew, The Moderator) (09/13/85)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 13 Sep 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Proposal - Translation of Technical Foreign Language Material, Computers and the Law - Restrictive BBS Legislation(2 msgs)& Satellite viewing "freedoms" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya) Date: 13 Sep 1985 1209-PDT (Friday) To: AIlist@sri-ai.ARPA, soft-eng@mit-mc.ARPA Subject: Technical foreign language material Lately, there have been significant technical advances from non-English speaking countries: Japan and the Continent. How many know the Japanese equivalent to the CACM? What is the German equivalent of the IEEE? It is too easy to say that such organizations and publications are not significant. We have been accused of parochialism. Our problems in the computer industry are rather unique as colleagues in other fields such as nuclear fusion report that most of their colleagues are, for all practical purposes, forced to come to the U.S. This is not the case with computing Just as we have file servers and process servers, we have a distributed system. Our greatest resource are not the machines, but the people with special skills. To this end I propose the following: Propose: 1) to identify individuals who are capable of providing simple translation. It would help if the Universities could do this. Perhaps, Universities could get assistance from foreign language departments. 2) Identify various foreign language publications of technical interest. Quickly identify articles of wide interest. This information could be posted to general interest Usenet newsgroups such as net.research and net.mag as well as the special interest groups such as the AI List, net.lang, and so forth. We should not create news grops, but work on top of existing groups. 3) Help fund subscription and translations. Perhaps, individuals without technical translation expertise can get together to pay for technical translations [commercial], and/or help fund the subscription of those with technical translation expertise. Dymond@nbs-vms.ARPA has started an info-japan and a nihongo discussion group on the ARPAnet, but it would be difficult to get Usenet participation. I specfically do not want to create new newsgroups. This structure can be placed atop the existing new group structure. The Usenet has several advantages for the circulation of this type of material: 1) it has the links into Japan, Korea, Australia, Germany, France, and the rest of Europe not on the ARPAnet. 2) since there is no global authority, industrial companies can participate more easily. 3) There are a diversity of news groups which make news dissemination easier: net.mag for instance is used for posting the TOCs of various publications, ideal for this type of dissemination. Other significant groups include: net.ai, net.cse, net.announce, net.physics, net.arch, net.math, net.mag, net.research, net.bio, net.graphics, net.wanted, net.nlang It appears our most critical needs are in the Eastern Asian languages such as Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. Other useful work would include French, German, and the other European languages. We have to look to the Universities for much of our assistance, but private organizations and government can also help. We can certainly make inquires. The Usenet extends into Japan, France, and other non-English native countries. We must take benefit of these contributors. Similarly, we can contribute to these countries by tagging significant English language documents. I am willing to act as a clearing house for determining finding individuals and groups, and specific journals. For this purpose, I am giving my address an ARPA, uucp gateway. Send the mail inquires there. More in a couple of weeks. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!amelia!eugene eugene@ames-nas ------------------------------ Date: Thu 29 Aug 85 10:54:50-PDT From: Ted Shapin <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA> Subject: Restrictive BBS Legilation FIDO is the name of a BB system that runs on the IBM-PC and unlike many other systems has automatic message routing over dial-up long-distance lines in the early AM when rates are lowest. The following discussion appeared on many FIDO systems and should be of interest. - - - - FIDONEWS -- 29 Jul 85 00:00:44 Page 4 ============================================================ NEWS ============================================================ BBSLAW01.MSG From Chip Berlet, Public Eye Magazine. HELP FIGHT BAD BBS LAWS - 01 FEDERAL LEGISLATION RESTRICTING BBS OPERATION DUE SOON! POST THIS MESSAGE ON EVERY BBS IN AMERICA! A new federal law that would outlaw some BBS systems and severely restrict all others could be passed by Congress in 1985. A mobilization of SYSOPS and BBS users is urgently needed to ensure we have a chance to speak out on the new law. Watch BBS's for messages with "BBSLAWXX.MSG" headers or "HELP FIGHT BAD BBS LAWS - XX" titles. An ad-hoc group will be posting these messages on BBS's and the commercial systems. LAWMUG SYSOP Paul Bernstein and I have learned the law could be introduced as soon as MID JULY! Although aspects of the new law have been discussed for months by "experts" in Washington, NOT ONE SYSOP WAS CONSULTED until a June 20 conference in Chicago which Paul and I attended. Vague language in another telecommunications law already introduced in Congress might also restrict BBS activities. We urged the Congressional aide involved in that legislation to exempt BBS systems until we could let SYSOPS and lawyers study the language more carefully. We must also monitor this law. The law restricting BBS operations was prompted by panic over the possibility that children (minors) might read pornographic material, and by the wave of publicity regarding the malicious hackers and illegal credit card and phone information posted on BBS's by electronic graffiti vandals. Among the ideas SERIOUSLY DISCUSSED for the new federal law restricting BBS's are provisions which would require: * Registration of all BBS's as a public utility. * BBS users to log in with, and post their legal names. * SYSOPS to keep a log of all names of users. * SYSOPS to keep a log of all messages & access times. * Criminal penalties for SYSOPS whose BBS's have illegal messages posted on them - even if the SYSOP was not aware of the message and had not been informed the message was there nor given a chance to remove it! While the law is currently only being discussed, there is much pressure to restrict and regulate BBS's. A good BBS law could protect BBS's and SYSOPS. A bad law could destroy BBS's in their infancy as a telecommunications phenomena. BBS's put the individual back into mass society in the age of telecommunications. BBS's encourage information sharing and remove barriers to discussion posed by social status, wealth, class, race, sex, physical size, and many physical handicaps. BBS's encourage the democratic process and are a powerful new communications system which deserves Constitutional protection and First Amendment Rights. NO LEGISLATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! There will be differing views of wording, law, and tactics; all should be given a chance to be heard. Congress should delay passage of any BBS legislation until BBS users and SYSOPS have a chance to discuss the legal issues and make their opinions known in a series of Congressional hearings. Our discussion must start immediately and we must organize to block bad BBS legislation until our voices are heard. We share the responsibility. Time is short. Spread the word. It is the electronic age. We are all Paul Revere.... FIDONEWS -- 19 Aug 85 00:02:15 Page 9 How FidoNet Can Help Fight Against Federal Legislation Restricting BBS Operation After reading the article in the July 29th issue of FidoNews by Chip Berlet on the new federal computer laws being proposed I decided to follow up and see how we could pool our resources in order to support the efforts of those individuals or groups that represent the majority of our bona fide BBS users and sysops. The only formal group that I found was the National Association of Bulletin Board Operators started by Chicago attorney Paul Bernstein who also runs a BBS for lawyers called LAWMUG. This is a relatively new group that currently includes Paul and a number of other Chicago residents. They are against federal efforts restricting bulletin boards and are currently soliciting support via messages on several bulletin boards, as well as the Source. If you would like more information or would like to send contributions their address is: National Association of Bulletin Board Operators c/o Paul Bernstein 600 N. McClurg Ct. Chicago, Ill. 60611 I also contacted the office of Senator Paul Tribble and was sent a copy of Senate Bill 1305. For those of you that may not be familiar this is a Bill to "establish criminal penalties for the transmission by computer of obscene matter, or by computer or by other means, of matter pertaining to the sexual exploitation of children, and for other purposes". Exchanging information pertaining to sexual crimes is not prohibited under current law. The problem with this Bill is that it doesn't stop there. Quoting from the Bill "any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy writing, description, picture, or other matter entered, stored, or transmitted by or in a computer" will constitute a crime. I'm no lawyer, but I'm certainly not in favor of governmental efforts that force me to ensure that nothing illegal occurs on my system. With Fido we have all the checks and balences to keep our boards clean without intervention. The ACLU opposes the Bill because it infringes on First Admendment rights. I would like to hear the opinion of others on this matter as I may be asked to testify on some of the positive aspects of bulletin boards. (Fido in particular). The hearings are scheduled for late September or early October. If you would like to comment or know more about this matter you can contact: Paul S. Trible,Jr. United States, Senator Virginia or Darren S. Trigonoplos Legislative Assistant for Senator Trible United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Senate Bill 1305 is called the Computer Pornorgraphy and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1985. It is currently under study in the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice. Ken Kaplan SYSOP Fido 100/22 or 100/51 ------------------------------ From: tanner <@csnet-relay.arpa,@ucf.CSNET:tanner@ki4pv.uucp> Date: Fri Aug 30 11:33:46 1985 Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V8 #27 (porno BBS's -- against law?) Pornography is defined by the supreme court as "anything that offends the local authorities"; this is known as the "community standards" ruling. Pornographic BBS's, as all other BBS's (and all other publishing, both electronic and paper) are protected by the first amendment. This does not apply in more conservative areas of the country of course. tanner andrews uucp: ...decvax!ucf-cs!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 10:14:01 PDT From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix.ARPA (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long) To: TELECOM@XX.ARPA I think there's rather a lot of misconception floating around regarding this issue. Part of my work is in the satellite communications area so I track these issues pretty closely. There have been a number of different legal events and laws regarding this area, and I'm not going to try specify them, but rather just explain the backround and outcome as I understand them. --- First of all, the oft-quoted old Communications Act doesn't really say you can listen/watch to whatever you want. It essentially says you can receive "broadcast" signals so long as you don't divulge the contents nor receive "benefit" from them. Interpretations of this law have long held that intercepting point-to-point telephone microwave transmissions can be construed as wiretapping, by the way. I'm simplifying to some extent regarding the Act, but you get the idea. Now, "benefit" can be defined in different ways. On one end, you might say you benefit only if you sell the signals/info you received and make money. On the other hand, it might be said that you benefit simply from enjoying the signals! In practice, the current legal view has been shifting from a strict interpretation more like the former view towards a different concept. More and more, "benefit" is being viewed as being able to receive something for free that other people have to pay a fee to receive. There are numerous complexities and exceptions. For example, if you scramble your signal, the current view is that you're not really "broadcasting" but really trying to do a multipoint feed to particular people. If you intended the signal for general reception, you wouldn't scramble. Laws now generally protect scrambled transmissions as being essentially "non-broadcast" entities. A recent California appeals case convicted someone of viewing unscrambled microwave MDS--but this case seems a bit cloudy and runs contrary to the general pattern--it may yet be overturned (MDS cases are often tricky, but I won't go into the details of this case here). Now, back to satellites. The people who transmit the popular cable services say they are not broadcasting to the public--that they are providing a service for their cable system affiliates only. This view was somewhat difficult to support given that the public ended up watching these signals in great numbers on cable systems. The situation was complicated by the fact that many people did not have access to cable and had no alternative to receiving the signals directly if they wanted to see them. This wouldn't have caused much trouble if the services had, by and large, been willing to deal with individuals. But most of them flatly refused to deal with other than cable entities, claiming the administrative hassles of dealing lots of individuals was too great. Of course, many people indeed bought dishes simply to avoid paying for cable, even when cable was available. For a number of reasons, this restriction was eventually rejected by Congress. The decision was made (as I understand it) that most unscrambled satellite transmissions were indeed fair game to receive, but that the public viewing these indeed DID receive benefit from receiving them, since their counterparts who subscribed to cable had to pay. The end result was the concept that you could watch pretty much whatever unscrambled transmissions you wanted, but if the signals were offered for sale to the general public at a fair and equitable price then you must pay for them. In other words, if a satellite service WERE WILLING to deal with you as an individual, and charged you an equitable fee in comparison to cable subscribers, you need to pay the fee since you are receiving benefit from the transmissions. If the service were unscrambled and refused to deal with you, then you were free to receive the service. In practice, there are other issues involved also, and this is just my own interpretation of events--take it for whatever value you will, but I think I'm pretty close to the bottom-line facts. Right now there is some hangling between some satellite services and congressmen who supported the bills in questions over the matter of pricing. There are some claims that the fees being charged to individuals are much higher than the fees charged per subscriber to cable systems... but the services claim that this is equitable given the administrative overhead of billing and record keeping for individuals. This issue has yet to be fully resolved. Issues of scrambled vs. non-scrambled transmissions are also still somewhat hazy in areas. Finally, I might add that I doubt very much that there would be a public outcry to repeal such restrictions. If anything, most people would probably support tighter restrictions. Most people don't have their own dishes, and pay for cable services. I suspect that most of these people (rightly or wrongly) detest the people who they perceive as getting for "free" what *they* have to pay for. In fact, if you brought it to a vote, I'll bet that the population would happily vote in many other restrictions on spectrum listening--such as law enforcement transmissions, portable telephones, etc. The mood of the country is generally conservative on these issues, so I suggest that you think carefully before trying to get the public at large involved in such telecommunications matters. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another about these particular issues, just passing along my understanding of the situation. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************