mowgli@bat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mowgli Assor) (05/31/89)
In article <11853@well.UUCP> dave@well.UUCP (Dave Hughes) writes: [...] >woman lawyer in the midwest was a user of a bulletin-board. She got >into a dispute witht he Sysop, via private mail to him. He made >their private correspondence public online. She sued him under >the EPCA for $50,000. The betting is she will win. Gee, coincidentally, this leads right into several questions I have about being the sysop of a BBS (any). [...] > It also says that, as a sysop, I *may*, if I detect illegal >activites online, turn that over to law enforcement. I am not >compelled to. But if you do, will they nail you for letting it occur on your system? [...] > I say that is pretty sensible start on electronic privacy. Interesting concept, 'electronic privacy'. My story below will then perhaps interest you. >Dave Hughes >dave@oldcolo.uucp I would like to ask the Net about being the sysop of a BBS. I'd suppose that there are FCC documents around (or some government-type docs) that specify what a BBS sysop can & can not go to jail for. Given of course that there are different ethics, there are probably also legal documents some- where about this subject. Where can I find these? I suppose an example might clear things up a little. A sysop here in Columbus reads ALL private mail on the BBS, because she claims that someone was arrested because call girls were using his BBS *IN PRIVATE MAIL!* to make appointments. I have *NO* idea whether this case actually exists, or whether she made it up to support her point, so I'd like to find any precedents that exist for this & any other cases which pertain to private mail on BBSs. I have vehemently disagreed with her, viewing (so labelled) 'private' mail the same as the mail coming via the U.S. Postal Service (albeit slightly faster, usually 9-). Am I right, is she wrong, & where can I find documentation to support my stance (or hers, for that matter)? Thanx, <Mowgli> -=- Address: mowgli@puffer.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mowgli Assor in real life) Or: mowgli@cis.ohio-state.edu The 2 precepts of Semi-Divinity: (1) Mind Thine Own Business. (2) Don't Worry About It.
vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) (06/03/89)
In article <50300@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> mowgli@bat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mowgli Assor) writes: I'd suppose that there are FCC documents around (or some government-type docs) that specify what a BBS sysop can & can not go to jail for. Given of course that there are different ethics, there are probably also legal documents some- where about this subject. Where can I find these? I suppose an example might clear things up a little. A sysop here in Columbus reads ALL private mail on the BBS, because she claims that someone was arrested because call girls were using his BBS *IN PRIVATE MAIL!* to make appointments. "Electronic Mail" on a BBS sitting in some one's living room should not be thoght of as private. Broadcasting your conversation over radio should not be considered private. The ECPA is supposed to make this private by making it illegal. If someone has evil intent do you think that an un-enforceable law will prevent them. I have *NO* idea whether this case actually exists, or whether she made it up to support her point, so I'd like to find any precedents that exist for this & any other cases which pertain to private mail on BBSs. I have vehemently disagreed with her, viewing (so labelled) 'private' mail the same as the mail coming via the U.S. Postal Service (albeit slightly faster, usually 9-). Am I right, is she wrong, & where can I find documentation to support my stance (or hers, for that matter)? "A liberal is someone too poor to be a capitalist and too rich to be a communist." _____ | | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625- -----
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (06/04/89)
In article <50300@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Mowgli Assor <mowgli@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
<I would like to ask the Net about being the sysop of a BBS.
<
<I'd suppose that there are FCC documents around (or some government-type docs)
<that specify what a BBS sysop can & can not go to jail for. Given of course
<that there are different ethics, there are probably also legal documents some-
<where about this subject. Where can I find these?
As a matter of fact, there are no such document, because "bbs" has no legal
definition. All the laws that *may* apply refer to computer systems.
<I suppose an example might clear things up a little. A sysop here in Columbus
<reads ALL private mail on the BBS, because she claims that someone was arrested
<because call girls were using his BBS *IN PRIVATE MAIL!* to make appointments.
<I have *NO* idea whether this case actually exists, or whether she made it up
<to support her point, so I'd like to find any precedents that exist for this &
<any other cases which pertain to private mail on BBSs.
Under *any* reasonable reading of ECPA, she can't do this unless she clearly
states that "private" mail *is* being read by the sysop.
<
<I have vehemently disagreed with her, viewing (so labelled) 'private' mail the
<same as the mail coming via the U.S. Postal Service (albeit slightly faster,
<usually 9-). Am I right, is she wrong, & where can I find documentation to
<support my stance (or hers, for that matter)?
<
Get a copy of:
SYSLAW
The Sysop's Legal Manual
Published by
LLM Press
150 Broadway
Suite 607
New York, NY 10038
(212) 766-3785
Note that ECPA is about the only Federal law, and you'll have to find out
which state laws may affect you. The book covers things adequately and
warns you about things you may not have thought of. (such as the fact that
*you* may get sued if a user posts a libelous message on your bbs!)
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Shortjik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (06/07/89)
In article <522@atlas.tegra.UUCP> vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) writes: >"Electronic Mail" on a BBS sitting in some one's living room should >not be thoght of as private. Broadcasting your conversation over >radio should not be considered private. The ECPA is supposed to make >this private by making it illegal. If someone has evil intent do you >think that an un-enforceable law will prevent them. I'm afraid I must disagree. By providing the bulletin board service and by calling certain correspondence "mail," I think the recognized assumption is that such mail is private -- that is why there is a distinction between messages on a message base and E-mail. Unless a Sysop specifically states that mail on his/her BBS should not be considered private, I think that a privacy assumption is valid. You say, "The ECPA is supposed to make this private by making it illegal." I think you've got it backwards. The ECPA is supposed to make this ILLEGAL because it is PRIVATE. Furthermore, sure, if a Sysop intends to read all the mail that passes through his BBS, then the ECPA might not prevent him from doing so, but it will private law-enforcement officials with a means of punishing the privacy violations inherent in his actions. This is the point of many laws, is it not? Deterrence as well as punitive action. Claiming that mail on a BBS should not be considered private because the Sysop has access to it and because the hardware is home hardware rather than an expensive mainframe is sort of like saying that I have the right to read any privat1e mail that chances its way through my UUCP feed. Both claims are faulty -- I may have the ABILITY, but that does not mean that I have the RIGHT, and if doing so is wrong, then a law which says so and provides a mean for enforcement and punishment is a valid law. Although perhaps it chould use a good rewriting to clarify some of the more shaky points.... :-) Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 410 Memorial Drive, No. 223F jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Cambridge, MA 02139-4318 Office: 617-253-4261 Home: 617-225-8218 P.S. Do you know how hard it is to make a smiley face on an Apple ][+ computer? Argh! I want my workstation back!
vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) (06/09/89)
In article <11873@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: In article <522@atlas.tegra.UUCP> vail@tegra.UUCP (Me!) writes: >"Electronic Mail" on a BBS sitting in some one's living room should >not be thoght of as private. Broadcasting your conversation over >radio should not be considered private. The ECPA is supposed to make >this private by making it illegal. If someone has evil intent do you >think that an un-enforceable law will prevent them? I'm afraid I must disagree. By providing the bulletin board service ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and by calling certain correspondence "mail," I think the recognized assumption is that such mail is private -- that is why there is a distinction between messages on a message base and E-mail. I'm afraid I must disagree with your disagreement. I would say by calling the systems a "bulletin board" you assume the opposite. The distinction of messages and email has nothing to do with privacy but with the direction of information, either 1->many or 1->1. Unless a Sysop specifically states that mail on his/her BBS should not be considered private, I think that a privacy assumption is valid. I would default the other way. It is easier and normal. The posting is voluntary and the gov't should not try to enforce things that they can't. A much better way is for the gov't to provide private email if that is really what is desired. They already provide first class mail and the phone company is a public utility (of course the PTT in Europe and other parts of the world controls the telephone as well so this is a more obvious govt control). You say, "The ECPA is supposed to make this private by making it illegal." I think you've got it backwards. The ECPA is supposed to make this ILLEGAL because it is PRIVATE. What I am saying is that no matter what you say or feel it *should* be, it_is_not_private. You may feel it is wrong and a violation of privacy and I agree with you. Trying to legislate privacy where there is no reasonable expecation of privacy or means of insuring it serves no purpose, other than to restrict the rights of individuals even further. Creating the illusion of privacy just makes it easier to abuse the people stupid enough to believe it. Furthermore, sure, if a Sysop intends to read all the mail that passes through his BBS, then the ECPA might not prevent him from doing so, but it will private law-enforcement officials with a means of punishing the privacy violations inherent in his actions. This is the point of many laws, is it not? Deterrence as well as punitive action. THE POINT OF ANY LAW IS TO RESTRICT FREEDOM. Any infringement or restriction of freedom should be only to add a clear and obvious benefit to society such as safety and rights of individuals. It is not clear that this law provides any benefit or safety to society. I like what another poster said about morals and laws: Law: Minimum standard of behavior. Moral: Maximum standard of behavior. P.S. Do you know how hard it is to make a smiley face on an Apple ][+ computer? Argh! I want my workstation back! Does it have something to do with look and feel? Stattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in. _____ | | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625- -----