larry@kitty.UUCP (10/03/87)
In article <2945@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > In <558@cc6.bbn.com.BBN.COM> arodwin@cc6.bbn.com.UUCP (Andrew Rodwin) writes: > > I am posting this here to curb this individual's behavior by public > > humiliation. [...] Does anyone know [...] who to contact at Rutgers to > > have his/her computer account terminated because of misuse? > ... > There is a whole other question regarding whether "squealing" to a > site administrator about the behavior of somebody at that site is the right > thing to do. I think it is, but lots of people think it is not. Well, *I* certainly agree with Roy Smith. System administrators and the site organizations themselves share legal responsibility for the actions of their users who send mail and post Usenet articles. The time is long overdue for someone to "test" this issue. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (10/03/87)
In article <2064@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > >System administrators >and the site organizations themselves share legal responsibility for the >actions of their users who send mail and post Usenet articles. The time >is long overdue for someone to "test" this issue. This may or may not be currently be the case, but I would argue that system administrators and owners should have no such responsibility, which should rest totally in the hands of the people sending mail and posting articles. I don't relish the prospect of having all my outgoing mail screened by my U.C. Berkeley officials in an effort to avoid legal difficulties, any more than I'd like having the U.S. Postal Service screening my paper mail for the same purpose. Why should UCB be held responsible for anything I say in private electronic communication, or for providing me with the resources to disseminate my opinions (distasteful as some people are likely to find them) via Usenet? We've got a WONDERFUL thing going with the current system, namely the fact that it's not regulated by government bureaucrats. Let's keep it that way! If you're sufficiently exasperated with the level of discourse here on the net, you're free to leave, start one of your own, and regulate it however you see fit. My stubborn Libertarian streak compels me to say "Mind your own store, bub, and leave the rest of us alone!" Especially considering your own rather mean-spirited behaviour in another newsgroup of late....or is that your way of "testing" this issue? -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) (10/04/87)
In article <21110@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Wilbur Lewis writes: > I don't relish the prospect of having all my outgoing mail screened by > my U.C. Berkeley officials in an effort to avoid legal difficulties... And U.C. Berkeley wouldn't relish it either. It would be more expedient for them to just axe netnews access. And that would most emphatically be that.
leonard@qiclab.pdx.com (Leonard Erickson) (10/07/87)
In article <2649@xanth.UUCP> kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) writes: <In article <21110@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Wilbur Lewis writes: <> I don't relish the prospect of having all my outgoing mail screened by <> my U.C. Berkeley officials in an effort to avoid legal difficulties... < <And U.C. Berkeley wouldn't relish it either. It would be more <expedient for them to just axe netnews access. And that would most <emphatically be that. As far as I know (and I freely admit that I'm not an expert) the only precedents are those from the case(s) involving credit card info and the like being posted on bulletin board systems. If these _are_ the only precedents, then the owner of a system is _totally_ responsible for anything posted on it, even if he didn't know it was there! By extension, I'd guess that mail & netnews would be the resonsibility of the originating site (though I wouldn't put it past the legal system to decide that _all_ sites that carried the offending material were liable). We have _got_ to get some precedents, or better yet, some intellgent laws on the subject. But I'm afraid that if the orinigator cannot be identified, then the sysadmin is the one whose neck will be on the line... (and likewise if the originating site can't be identified, the last site oin the chain will be 'it') -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
PAAP@homxc.UUCP (PAAP) (10/08/87)
If the person who got insulted is interested I'm not positive, but I am better than 90% sure I know who the jerk was who insulted you. He works for AT&T Technologies in Columbus, OH. I don't think anything will come of it, but if you'd like his name and business phone number then you can contact me. Geoff Gex AT&T Bell Labs Red Hill 201-615-5396 homxc!geoff