dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/21/89)
The newsgroup comp.misc has been discusing the possibility extending the USENET to the Soviet Union (USSR). And In article <24302@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >Note that the net already has a similar problem, but I don't hear much >about it. I can type in chapters from _Spycatcher_ or some other work >that has been censored in Britain under the Official Secrets Act, and >send it to a newsgroup with world-wide distribution. Any British >organization that helped "publish" the article would be in violation >of that same Official Secrets Act (or so I believe). That's a lot >worse than "violating export control laws by publishing" in a country >with guaranteed freedom of the press. > > Peter Desnoyers The tone of some people's posting on the subject is that there is no problem with the use of USENET and that posting of various material can pose no legal problems. This attitude is most dangerous. In fact should this sort of activity continue, it is possible the we have an incident that could can serious harm to USENET and computer communications. One of the unstated ground rules of USENET is that most of the people that count are not truly aware of what USENET really is. ATT recently had a situation where Senior Executives suddenly became aware of the "true nature" of USENET. After a flurry of meetings and a policy statement and such the only hazards were alt.sex and talk.flame. Should a serious connection of USENET to the countries listed in the US export control act be made and this come to the attention of either the State Department OR the Department of Justice the flap could be serious enough to cause all major supporter of USENET to flinch. The actions of NSA with respect to crypt provided a chilling effect on DES and crypt and that was without any network. Should the wrong people become aware of the possibility of comp.source.* and comp.binaries.* leaving the US of A one might find a set of letters being sent to the various company CEO with discussions about "criminal prosecution", etc. The comment about Spycatcher brings up some serious worries about legal problems: what is legal in the US of A is not legal in other coutries and vice versa. Examples are child pornography, seditious statements, release of software, etc. We need to be especially careful after the recent awareness of the non-technical public of things like the Internet Worm, the Brad Templeton affair, etc. It take only one major mistake and the wrong goverment official deciding to make a Federal case to destory what we have. True there is no USENET administration, and nobody responsible. But would the CEO of the average company not get a little nervous if s/he were told that their machine was being used, for example to conduct a dialog on child porn? [Not that it is true but much of alt.sex is illegal and considered obscene by several states.] The point is that comp.misc is not the place to discuss the ramifications on allowing USENET access to the Soviet Union. Nor to creating a set of news groups for this purpose. While there is nothing that can be done on this anarchic net to prevent people from doing things that are illegal or destructive to the future of the net, please realize that your actions and words can in fact do major damage. Yes, I am aware of freedom of speech, and all the other arguments that have circulated endlessly on this subject. Just please be aware that despite your own personal beliefs on what the net should be like, the final disposition is up to non-technical people with lots of nasty things that they can do. Moral: one doesn't make nerve gas and terrorist equipment on the front porch and publicize it in the New York Times. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/22/89)
In article <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: >The newsgroup comp.misc has been discusing the possibility extending >the USENET to the Soviet Union (USSR). And > >In article <24302@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >>Note that the net already has a similar problem, but I don't hear much >>about it. I can type in chapters from _Spycatcher_ or some other work .. and then goes on to describe how this could be potentially illegal. >The tone of some people's posting on the subject is that there is >no problem with the use of USENET and that posting of various >material can pose no legal problems. > >This attitude is most dangerous. In fact should this sort of >activity continue, it is possible the we have an incident that >could can serious harm to USENET and computer communications. > .. and then goes into intimate detail on how dangerous these and other associated activities are. .. and predicts the imminent demise of the net. I sure hope that the history of the net gets published soon AND is required reading. We'll need sub-chapters on imminent collaspe due to volume; imminent demise due to illegal activities; imminent collaspe due to over cross-posting; imminent demise due to boredom of net.deities; imminent collaspe because a net.deity has been insulted; imminent demise when the bean counters find out; ........ I'm not saying that it couldn't happen just that it's exceedingly unlikely. And there are *many* counter-examples from the past few years showing why not. For example one predicted problem was "what would happen if the people who run companies actually knew what UseNet is?". Well there are an awful lot of small but powerful sites on the net now that are simply a 386 box in someones basement. There isn't a CEO around here to tell me to turn this system off (well except for my wife ;-). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (01/24/89)
In article <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes:
)The tone of some people's posting on the subject is that there is
)no problem with the use of USENET and that posting of various
)material can pose no legal problems.
Correct, and the limits of liability of System Admins and
corporations owning the machines in question is still *very* much
in the air. And with the current stats from UUNET showing traffic
of nearly 55meg this last two *weeks* the question of screening
the material continues to recede from the realm of practicality.
Some of you have seen my paper on liability for libel on
the net, now probably very out of date. Things were scary then,
and I havn't seen anything to make me feel that they are better now.
And the question of how to cope with the problem is even thornier,
to the point where, short of a (literal) act of congress there *is*
no solution.
)This attitude is most dangerous. In fact should this sort of
)activity continue, it is possible the we have an incident that
)could can serious harm to USENET and computer communications.
You said a mouthful. One person, with a reasonably
hot flame in hand and more money than sense, could do a terrible
amount of damage to the net as it exists today. I know *I* would
hate to see that happen, there is a huge potential here for a
benefit to society. But I also know that there are people out there
who disagree...
)[Not that it is true but much of alt.sex is illegal and considered
)obscene by several states.]
Can you provide evidence to back this up, both parts? I just
recently looked into alt.sex for the first time since its creation,
and havn't seen anything that would be either (though the obscene
part is admittedly *very* much open to debate.) But I haven't seen
anything that could be construed as illegal per se...
)=Dennis L. Mumaugh
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"Self-discipline implies some unpleasant things to me, including staying away from chocolate ..." Oleg Kiselevdlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/26/89)
In article <5735@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > In article <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: > )[Not that it is true but much of alt.sex is illegal and considered > )obscene by several states.] > > Can you provide evidence to back this up, both parts? I just > recently looked into alt.sex for the first time since its creation, > and havn't seen anything that would be either (though the obscene > part is admittedly *very* much open to debate.) But I haven't seen > anything that could be construed as illegal per se... > My comment was in reference to several things. It is illegal to allow persons under 18 access to "pornography". Hence, per se, alt.sex is "illegal" if a person under 18 has access. Datum: how many University undergraduates are under 18? How many university machines that support the undergraduate comp sci 1A have alt.sex? The US of A has laws prohibiting "pornography" involving "children" under 18. This has been construed [in one case] to include a father taking the picture of his 18 month old child in the nude. Hence, if an article on alt.sex talks about two teenagers boinking that can be construed to be illegal per se. Also, some states consider various explicit descriptions "illegal". Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding importation of "obscene material". In this sense alt.sex could be so considered. Then of course, there is the S&M digest. {It IS rot13 but that's a minor point}. Some countries have laws that prohibit encyphered communications. Technically rot13 is a cipher. Of course, none of the above has ever met a recent court challenge and "Free Speech" considerations are very much involved. The point is that only one crusading States Attorney or southren[sic] High Sheriff[sic] is all that is required to make a stink. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (01/27/89)
In article <2421@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: >My comment was in reference to several things. It is illegal to >allow persons under 18 access to "pornography". Hence, per se, >alt.sex is "illegal" if a person under 18 has access. Datum: how >many University undergraduates are under 18? How many university >machines that support the undergraduate comp sci 1A have alt.sex? There is a missing assumption which you're making, but not stating, to make your argument consistent. That is, you must also assert that alt.sex is "pornography" -- this has a much more restrictive definition than "obscenity". >The US of A has laws prohibiting "pornography" involving >"children" under 18. This has been construed [in one case] to >include a father taking the picture of his 18 month old child in >the nude. Hence, if an article on alt.sex talks about two >teenagers boinking that can be construed to be illegal per se. Another "undistributed middle". The first point discusses an action (taking a picture) though the decision in question was bogus. The second point refers to speech. What's this "hence" business. What do your first two sentences have to do with the third? >Also, some states consider various explicit descriptions >"illegal". Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding >importation of "obscene material". In this sense alt.sex could >be so considered. Well, maybe. That's why it's an alt group. Sites are expected to choose, individually, which alt groups they will accept and pass. If alt.sex is a problem in country X, it is up to news sites in country X not to import it. >Some countries have laws that prohibit encyphered communications. >Technically rot13 is a cipher. Oh, foo. The prohibitions refer to attempts to prevent the government spooks from reading messages if they wish. Rot13 messages essentially come with documentation about how to read the messages. They aren't in violation of rules like this, except in the sense that ASCII text is a violation (guess what: ASCII is a code. rot13 is a code in the exact same sense -- it just gives the characters different names). >Of course, none of the above has ever met a recent court >challenge and "Free Speech" considerations are very much >involved. The point is that only one crusading States Attorney >or southren[sic] High Sheriff[sic] is all that is required to >make a stink. So we should censor ourselves lest we be censored? What's the point? If you don't want a newsgroup on your machine, request that your news feed not send it to you. In practice, Usenet as a whole is in legal limbo. We don't know if it's a broadcaster or a common carrier, we don't know if it's like speaking or publishing, we don't know what the rules really are. (Anyone who thinks they do know: please refer me to the court decison where it's been declared officially). -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites We must guard against the blind urge to snatch at a quick answer in the form of a formula. - Martin Heidigger, "What Is Called Thinking"
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/28/89)
In article <2421@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: > Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding >importation of "obscene material". In this sense alt.sex could >be so considered. Probably no harsher than yours - even Hustler gets in nowadays with nary a blink. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
sbelcas@hvrunix.UUCP (Sarah Belcastro) (01/31/89)
In reference to the question as to how many universities received alt.sex, i volunteer that Haverford gets no alt. groups. I wish we did. --sarah marie belcastro. Bitnet: (PLEASE!!) s_belcastro@hvrford
jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Mary Doyle) (02/01/89)
In article <504@hvrunix.UUCP> sbelcas@hvrunix.UUCP (Sarah Belcastro) writes: >In reference to the question as to how many universities received >alt.sex, i volunteer that Haverford gets no alt. groups. I wish we did. > --sarah marie belcastro. > Bitnet: (PLEASE!!) s_belcastro@hvrford At Princeton, we get all the alt. groups. A few of them are even worth having. :-) Jen p.s. Hi Sarah! Visiting from misc.kids? -- It`s nice to know that when the whole world seems crazy, you have friends who make it seem sane in comparison. -Me Jen Princeton `92 jmdoyle@phoenix.princeton.EDU Disclaimer: I am a student, I represent the future.
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (02/06/89)
I was just told that this newsgroup was conversing about the
ICC. Unfortunatly, the articles have expired on this
machine. Can someone send me email on what went on here?
Or, if some one has the articles archived could they pass
them on??
Thanks,
Tim
--
...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar
>fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406
...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904
USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108