gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan09.175609.6303@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Assume serious legal action begins. It has to look for a target. There >are no targets. Perhaps it goes away frustrated, but all it takes is one >plaintiff not willing to go away. > >Targets include uunet and the NSF to begin with. Or some big sites. > >Problem is that at many sites all it would take is a whiff of a lawsuit to >have the site removed from the net by admins who are unaware of usenet or >uncomfortable with it. "Who needs trouble?" Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I have a suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy and 2) a law to back it up. What I'm suggesting is this: We create an administrative policy guide for News admins. Simply; it is not the responsibility of a news site to check any information about any incoming news; however, if the site admin is notified that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not know to be illegal in some way. Suggestions? Flamage? I'm willing to send _my_ congresspeople a horde of letters... are you, for the long-term good of Usenet and other computer systems. == George William Herbert == * UNIX ate my last .sig, Waiting for Plan 9! * == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == ######### I do Naval Architecture, ########## == + Anywhere, at my price. + == # Spacecraft Design, UNIX Systems Consulting # == + gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu + == # RPG writing/development, and lots of other # == + ucbvax!ocf!gwh + == ## random stuff, of course. I'm a JOAT 8-) ##
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (01/11/91)
The ACLU handbook on the rights of authors and artists offers this information: "Who can sued in a libel or privacy case? The original writer or creator is always directly answerable, much as the driver of a delivery truck is answerable for any accident. The employer of the writer, if any, is also answerable, like the employer of a driver. The publisher/broadcaster of the work may also be answerable, even if the writer is a free-lance contributor; and individual editors, producers, and collaborators who participate in the creation of a work may also be held answerable [187]. It occasionally happens that a plaintiff sues the printer of a work, its distributor and/or retailer, even the advertisers who have sponsored it. However, because of the Supreme Court's decision in the Getz case requiring plaintiffs to prove that libelous statements have been published with fault on the part of the defendant, it seems unlikely that tangential defendants will be found liable [188]. ------ [187] For a complex but important recent discussion of the potential defamation liability of the persons and entities in the publishing process -- original newspaper publishers vs. paperback (re)publishers, original reports vs. paperback editor, etc -- see Karaduman v. Newsday, 51 N.Y.2d 531 (1980) [188] See, e.g., Maynard v. Port Publications, Inc., 98 Wis.2d 555, 297, N.W.2d 500(1980] ------- " I think a Usenet BBS owner is more like a conventional printer or distributor than like a conventional publisher. Like a [conventional] printer and distributor, the BBS owner doesn't necessarily read the material, but he or she knows where the material comes from. Or to use Brad Templeton's terminology, conventional printing and distribution is a unmonitored, nonanonymous system. [The quote is from _The Rights of Authors and Artists: Comprehensive and Up-to-Date, A Basic Guide to the Legal Rights of Authors and Artists_ (An American Civil Liberties Union Handbook), 1983, by Kenneth P. Norwick & Jerry Simon Chasen with Henry R. Kaufman] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Fourth Amendment (War-on-Drugs version): The right of the people to be secure in their persons shall not be violated but upon probable cause *or for random urine tests*
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (01/11/91)
In article <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > What I'm suggesting is this: We create an administrative policy guide > for News admins. Simply; it is not the responsibility of a news site to check > any information about any incoming news; however, if the site admin is notified > that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's > responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. > Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a > law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal > responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not > know to be illegal in some way. George, Usenet is an international network. Brad Templeton, who raised this issue, is a Canadian. The US congress has jurisdiction of only a very limited part of the worldwide network. Different countries have different laws. Most western democracies besides the US have limits on racist speech; in many cases these laws were put on the books to help keep the Nazis and Fascists from rising again. This has caused problems in the past. Anyone remember Don Black? He identified himself as an "identity Christian" -- this is a hate group that claims Jesus Christ was really of Teutonic stock and had nothing to do with the Jews, and that denies that the Holocaust ever took place. Many of his postings explicitly violated the laws of many European countries -- they were often extremely anti-Semitic (I am not talking anti-Israeli; I am talking about explicit pro-Nazi stuff). For the early part of his Usenet career, net.politics went to Europe. While one of the reasons for cutting the transmission was cost, several system administrators cited laws against "hate literature" as a reason as well. Even if this weren't a problem, getting the attention of Congress to the legal status of Usenet is likely to backfire. Can you imagine what Jesse Helms will do when alt.sex.bondage is brought to his attention? Or even soc.motss? I'm afraid that any attempt to "fix" the ambiguous legal situation will only make the problems worse, and that the best solutions are to treat problem articles on a case-by-case basis. Here are some suggested responses to various possibilities; they are only suggestions based on my seven years or so around here: Example 1: someone posts a stolen credit card number on the net. Action: any system administrator who sees it should immediately forge a cancel message, and alert news.admin and other appropriate channels so it is removed wherever possible. Example 2: someone posts proprietary or licensed software on the net. This has happened before. ONCE IT HAS BEEN MADE CERTAIN THAT THE POSTING WAS ILLEGAL, procedure #1 should be followed. (In one of the more notorious occurrences of this, Reed College removed itself from the net completely after a student there illegally posted source code). In addition, a news.announce.important message should alert people at sites where cancel messages may not have reached that the indicated software is illegal and should be deleted. Software companies are familiar enough with how networks operate that I anticipate no trouble from them is this procedure is followed thoroughly. Example 3: "hate literature" type postings (extremely vile and racist postings that may be illegal in some countries) In the US, let them stand; flame the hell out of the jerk that sent them. In the past, it's often turned out that for the really sickening postings, the real sender is not the person in the From: line and that person is an innocent victim of a forged posting. If system administrators in other countries have a concern, they can decide on their own to cancel the articles: control messages should be limited in distribution to specific countries (this works best in those areas where the network is more closely organized and administered). The net as a whole can be made aware of problems in news.admin. Example 4: allegations of libel/slander. 99 times out of a hundred, this is just a round of namecalling that's gotten out of hand -- I prefer to work on soothing the ill feelings and correcting any errors than to treat it as a legal issue. There was only one semi-serious threat of a suit that I recall -- the idea was that harrassment of women on the net was so severe that companies that carry the net in the US could be sued under the equal employment opportunity/affirmative action rules, for providing conditions that discriminate against women. The person in question was the infamous Mark Ethan Smith. Nothing ever came of it, partly because comp.society.women was approved (oh, what a glorious war that one was). I think that in such cases we should look for some kind of face-saving compromise for all parties; usually the person making the noise does have a legitimate grievance but has lost all sense of proportion. As someone said, "after all, it's only ones and zeros..." Some purists say that no one should ever post forged cancel messages under any conditions. Given that the US government has seized people's computers and threatened them with jail because actions #1 or #2 above were done to their BBSes, can you really expect system administrators and owners from taking that kind of risk? -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/11/91)
I must agree that we must seek nothing specific for USENET. Let the net grow and become important. Then when the lawmakers come, they will have to codify what's there instead of trying to change it to something else. The creation of a new class of information distributor, halfway between common carrier/enhanced service provider and publisher, to fit the BBS and BBS network world is something that we're almost ready for, but no great need to rush it. Until they start bringing out their goons. When the goons come, it is too late for those they attack, but far from too late for the rest. Instead, the goons are (as they have been in the case of the formation of the EFF) the instigation of a proper effort on our part. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dutcher@seas.gwu.edu (Sylvia Dutcher) (01/11/91)
In article <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a >law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal >responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not Phil Gagner, my husband who's a lawyer and computer scientist, comments: When Congress passes a statute, it defines narrowly the scope of the law in that area. I do not believe that we have enough experience with computer communication systems to draft a good law. Check out the proposed computer virus law pending in Congress for a really poorly drafted statute, based on a lack of technical understanding of the consequences of the law. Probably better to let the courts, with their strong tendency to protect 1st Amendment values, wrestle with the problem. Congressional "protection" of an activity is sometimes the kiss of death.
mikeh@microme.uucp (Michael L. Hasenfratz) (01/12/91)
efdca
cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) (01/15/91)
On 10 Jan 91, gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) G> In article <> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Problem is that at many sites all it would take is a whiff of a lawsuit to >have the site removed from the net by admins who are unaware of usenet or >uncomfortable with it. "Who needs trouble?" G> Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I have a G> suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy and G> 2) a law to back it up. 1) Enforced by what mechanism? 2) The same. G> [...] G> however, if the site admin is notified G> that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's G> responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. Here the qustion of what libel is arises. Last I heard, it takes a judge and a jury to do that on a case-by-case basis. There are few standards and precedents to go by. What seems libelous to one man is criticism/commentary to another. Case in point: Falwell vs. Larry Flynt Publications, in which Falwell attempted to claim libel/emotional trauma after a (IMHO damn funny) full-page critical 'ad' appeared in _Hustler_. He was defeated resoundingly. G> Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a G> law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal G> responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not G> know to be illegal in some way. Such a bill will be promptly defeated by the lawyers in Congress and the lobbyists for every legal orginization from here to Calcutta. You forget how these folks make their money: as a percentage of the cash awards they win for their clients. The more the settlement/award, the richer they get. Joe Newsposter is piss-poor. His organization or school or the site that is fingered as a prime distributer of the offending article is not. You don't sue poor people. You sue rich insurance companies and businesses. The rich companies then shaft their customers for the costs. Just ask any insurance company that sell malpractice or auto insurance. G> Suggestions? Flamage? I'm willing to send _my_ congresspeople a horde G> of letters... are you, for the long-term good of Usenet and other computer G> systems. The long-term good of Usenet is to keep as low a profile as possible. -- Cerebus <cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu> "The methods which you propose would result in a recognizable USENET organization; this would only make a beter target to sue."
bryden@chopin.udel.edu (Chris Bryden) (01/25/91)
In article <> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: }ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes: }> Anonymity is a tool which is useful to promote freedom of expression of }> ideas which might "rock-the-boat", gently or otherwise. Anonymity protects }> the poster from any any adverse reaction caused by damage to himself or to }> the "target" of his posts if any. Anonymity not only promotes freedom of expression, but it could also be used as a tool for gathering information that nobody in their right mind would release. Consider John G. DeArmond's piss test survey and drug attitude census. Usenet is not a perfect sample of society, but it certainly is a metaphor for how information may be gathered in the future. Anonymity is a part of everyday life, you read in on the bathroom walls and deal with in on the job. Heard of a blind carbon copy? They're standard practice in corporate America. There's no reason not to have Anonymity in usenet. In fact, you can't avoid it. }> If he believes there is nothing to be protected from, there is no need to }> post anonymously. }There is something for BIFF to be protected from. The flame mail of }people who think "if I don't like it, it shouldn't be there." Usenet is a creative anarchy. There's lots of reasons people want to stay anonymous. Women, gays, whistle blowers, subversives, activists, thiefs etc., all deserve the right to be anonymous. Even if the powers that be wanted to take this right away, they would only find that anonymous posting services, training accounts and very intricate forgeries would popup. }> By using anonymity, the poster demonstates his belief that *he* believes }> they may have some effect from which he needs protected. I think that there's enough Usenet history to demonstrate that anonymity is not a paranoid want. Sometimes it's necessary. It should be available all the time. I'm supprised that the GNU people haven't raised a little more electronic hell. I mean we live in a time where intelectual property rights are made, tested and expoited by large corperations. If alt.sources.grab-bag (a hypothetical news group where copyrighted programs (say, like the latest mac roms) were posted in an encrypted format along with an ftp address where the key could be found) poped up, how many sysadmins would blow it out of the water? I'll tell you. Just about everybody. The rest would be put in jail. Now, consider the moral and ethical implications of such a news group. As posted, the sources would be useless, thus depriving those who retrieved file from the group of any actual use. Similarly, the intelectual owner of the posted sources would not be directly deprived of income because of the poster's actions. Only users who retrieved and used the key would be responsible for thieft. To prove copyright infringement, three actions must be show to be true without a reasonable doubt. Access to the copyrighted materials must be demonstraited, actual copying of the property must be show and a demonstraited loss of income in necessary. It would be hard to nail someone who posted to grab-bag based current legislation, but hey, that's the law. Now, let me tell you why no sysadm on earth would let a group like that exist on their machine. As it stands now, the government holds the administrators of news distributing computer resposible for all the information that flows to and through their computer. Witness all the BBS gone astray computer seizures. Yeh, like news administrators actually filter through 10 megs of information a day... If we want Usenet to mirror society, there is some amount of trust that must be put to the citizens of the community. After all, when you pay that kid 25 cents to wash your windshield, are you really doing it because you don't want him to smash it out? Or, do you trust him? Ultimately, you should ask yourself how you would like society to be and apply your wishes to Usenet. Because, as real society becomes more and more information dependent, it will begin to look more and more like Usenet. In a sentence, Usenet is a possible practicing ground for our (non-electric) society: don't make decisions that please those in power; make decisions that please yourself. Chris -- {gateway}!udel!brahms!bryden | I am a direct result of the policies and actions bryden@udel.edu 302-451-6339 | that are endorsed by the University of Delaware.