isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) (05/12/86)
I don't think this has been discussed, but if it has, I apologise. The international flavour of the net makes it all the more important to ensure that software is general enough to deal with differing situations. Consider a user who posts an article (be it locally or world-wide) the material of which, might be considered to be a criminal offence in some country. For example, some countries might be more explicit in their outlawing of electronic-cum-printed matter which is racist. We cannot know all the little laws and loopholes, however, there seems to be a very simple change which should be made to postnews, and Pnews to protect administrators, universities etc who *might* be considered promulgators and publishers of such material. Each country will have its own law, lawmakers etc but if we put in a question like (maybe different words) "Do you accept the fact that if the material in your article is considered illegal in any country which it reaches, it is entirely your responsibility, and your undertaking etc ... [y/n]?" If the answer given is "no", then the program should not proceed. I do realise that it is HIGHLY unlikely that someone would act against someone (moreso unlikely if that person was in another country!) Nevertheless, this idea seems good to me - what do you think? Lawyer types? Isaac Balbin
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/14/86)
>From: isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) >...Consider a user who posts an article (be it locally >or world-wide) the material of which, might be considered to be a >criminal offence in some country... >...(suggests that the posting program should prompt:) >"Do you accept the fact that if the material in your article is >considered illegal in any country which it reaches, it is entirely your >responsibility, and your undertaking etc ... [y/n]?" >If the answer given is "no", then the program should not proceed. Millions in charity but not one penny in tribute is this guy kidding? Who's gonna come and get us from these hypothetical foreign countries? Hey guy, you just crossed the line where "liberalism" and "tolerance" stop dead, I (and I hope most of my compatriots) don't "tolerate" the tyranny you describe, that's not a "cosmopolitan" view as you seem to imply, that's cowardice. If residents of other countries think it's unfair that they may get cut off because USENET violates some disgusting internal law they have, tell them to go speak to their disgusting internal lawmakers, I ain't gonna wear no foreign gag. Yes, I feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough to compromise *my* freedoms, that's for their citizens to fix. -Barry Shein, Boston University
isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) (05/15/86)
In article <611@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes:
!
!
! is this guy kidding? Who's gonna come and get us from these hypothetical
! foreign countries? Hey guy, you just crossed the line where "liberalism"
! and "tolerance" stop dead, I (and I hope most of my compatriots) don't
! "tolerate" the tyranny you describe, that's not a "cosmopolitan" view as
! you seem to imply, that's cowardice.
!
! If residents of other countries think it's unfair that they may get
! cut off because USENET violates some disgusting internal law they
! have, tell them to go speak to their disgusting internal lawmakers, I
! ain't gonna wear no foreign gag. Yes, I feel sorry for them, but not
! sorry enough to compromise *my* freedoms, that's for their citizens to
! fix.
!
! -Barry Shein, Boston University
No, Barry, no-one is going to drag you out of your bed and put you in
a package to chernobyl because you posted an article which was critical
of Gorbachev's tailor. Be serious! I am not talking about such rubbish.
I *am* talking about VERY SERIOUS issues such as the publication of racist
material. The idea I suggested implies that
(a) If it is an offence in Boston to do so, that if you do indeed go ahead
the onus is on *YOU*.
(b) If it is an offence in Greenland, it is unlikely that anyone would
do anything to *YOU*, but imagine a scenario where a whole lot of
racist stuff was being sent from country (a). It ends up in country
(b) and some users in that country are offended and take the matter
to someone higher. The point is that the administrators and institutions
can now claim that they specifically authorised news which was illegal.
Of course, after this they could write to the person involved and tell
his sys admin to make his news local.
Remember this, you are still FREE to postnews.
You are still FREE to post racist or other such news.
But you are DEFINITELY NOT FREE to cause the blame to fall on other innocent
shoulders.
Isaac Balbin.isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) (05/15/86)
In article <1246@mulga.OZ> isaac@mulga.OZ I write:
! to someone higher. The point is that the administrators and institutions
! can now claim that they specifically authorised news which was illegal.
^^^^^^^
Should be read as -> legal.henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (05/15/86)
> ... there seems to be a very simple change which should be made > to postnews, and Pnews to protect administrators, universities etc > who *might* be considered promulgators and publishers... a question > like (maybe different words) > "Do you accept the fact that if the material in your article is > considered illegal in any country which it reaches, it is entirely your > responsibility, and your undertaking etc ... [y/n]?" > ...this idea seems good to me - what do you think? ... Won't work. After the first few times any given poster sees it, the 'n' answer will become automatic and thought about the issue will cease. People who give serious attention to such matters will continue to do so; people who don't care will continue not to care. And the warning will become yet another over-mouthy message polluting one's terminal with unwanted chatter. If it really provided any legal protection, it might be worth considering a trimmed-down version. But I can't see that it would help. Whether the material in the article is entirely the author's responsibility depends on whether Usenet is a publisher or a common carrier, not on whether the author signs an acceptance of responsibility. If Usenet is a publisher, then the providers of the facilities are responsible for the contents, no excuses allowed. Is Usenet a publisher? Nobody knows; it's a gray area with no real precedents. Undoubtedly the answer will vary between countries. -- Join STRAW: the Society To Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Revile Ada Wholeheartedly {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) (05/16/86)
Isaac Balbin >>...Consider a user who posts an article (be it locally >>or world-wide) the material of which, might be considered to be a >>criminal offence in some country... >>...(suggests that the posting program should prompt:) In article <611@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: >is this guy kidding? Who's gonna come and get us from these hypothetical >foreign countries? Hey guy, you just crossed the line where "liberalism" >and "tolerance" stop dead, I (and I hope most of my compatriots) don't >"tolerate" the tyranny you describe, that's not a "cosmopolitan" view as >you seem to imply, that's cowardice. ^^^^^^^^^ By this do you mean that to respect some other person's point of view, is cowardly ? Your posting would seem to suggest that the only people worth paying any attention to are those that can inflict some damage on you if you ignore them. There are countries, such as France, with a very different set of laws from those used in the USA. It is I believe illegal to send personal details across French borders by Electronic means. Although I don't agree with this rule it wasn't passed by the French legislature as a personal challange to every other country in the world. They did it as the elected officials of their country. I'm sure you wouldn't dispute their right to do this. Simply because your actions aren't illegal where they are perpetrated dosen't mean that you shouldn't consider their legality in all the places where they are manifest. The concept of "I'll do what I like because I'm bigger than you and you can't get me" has always been the cry of the bully and lout, these concepts are out of place in an educated environment. >If residents of other countries think it's unfair that they may get >cut off because USENET violates some disgusting internal law they ^^^^^^^^^^ Your tolerance is touching. >have, tell them to go speak to their disgusting internal lawmakers, I >ain't gonna wear no foreign gag. Yes, I feel sorry for them, but not ^^^^^ Even your language is de-generating, I was obviously wrong to think this was an Educated person speaking. >sorry enough to compromise *my* freedoms, You obvioulsy rate your right to Xenophobia very highly > ... that's for their citizens to >fix. It may come as a great shock to you, but many of the 'citizens' of whom you speak are quite happy with the state of many of their laws. You can rest assured that if you do violate the laws of any country other than the US they will notice, as a Xenophobic you probably don't want to travel abroad in all those disgusting foreign countries anyway. > -Barry Shein, Boston University ^^^^^^^^^^^ Prove your not a bully, use power to help, not to control. Craig. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research Group
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (05/16/86)
In article <611@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: >If residents of other countries think it's unfair that they may get >cut off because USENET violates some disgusting internal law they >have, tell them to go speak to their disgusting internal lawmakers, I >ain't gonna wear no foreign gag. Yes, I feel sorry for them, but not >sorry enough to compromise *my* freedoms, that's for their citizens to >fix. I see - it's OK for you to do what you like on the net as long as it doesn't break US law, even if your action is illegal elsewhere on the net. What you are advocating is absolute selfishness - no respect for anything but yourself. How would you feel if I used the net to do something legal in the UK, but was illegal in the US? I'm sure you would be most unhappy at that. The network won't remain international for long if everyone took your attitude. Maybe that's what you want - or would you prefer everyone to conform to Boston state law and let your government legislate for the whole world? Jim
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (05/19/86)
In article <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) writes: > . . . > There are countries, such as France, with a very different set of laws > from those used in the USA. It is I believe illegal to send personal > details across French borders by Electronic means. Although I don't agree > with this rule it wasn't passed by the French legislature as a personal > challange to every other country in the world. They did it as the elected > officials of their country. I'm sure you wouldn't dispute their right to > do this. Uh, I say, old boy, just what *are* "personal details"? Is this a Britishism like lift (vs. elevator) and lorry (vs. truck)? "Personal details" sounds like a euphemism for something ... please let us North Americans in on it! > Simply because your actions aren't illegal where they are perpetrated > dosen't mean that you shouldn't consider their legality in all the places > where they are manifest. > > The concept of > > "I'll do what I like because I'm bigger than you and you > can't get me" > > has always been the cry of the bully and lout, these concepts > are out of place in an educated environment. Oh, balderdash. Mr. Shein's hostility toward self-censorship, which I share, is rooted not in "might makes right" but in the special place that freedom of expression occupies in the American soul. I'm deeply sorry that Europeans and others do not share the unbroken tradition of democracy and personal rights that we have enjoyed in the USA for the past two-plus centuries. But I'll be damned if we should let some brain-damaged French politicians tell us what we can and cannot say on the net and what subjects are legally proper to discuss. I'm with Barry. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
gsmith@brahms.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) writes: >There are countries, such as France, with a very different set of laws >from those used in the USA. It is I believe illegal to send personal >details across French borders by Electronic means. Although I don't agree >with this rule it wasn't passed by the French legislature as a personal >challange to every other country in the world. They did it as the elected >officials of their country. I'm sure you wouldn't dispute their right to >do this. >Simply because your actions aren't illegal where they are perpetrated >dosen't mean that you shouldn't consider their legality in all the places >where they are manifest. We have enough trouble dealing with the censorship lobby in this country. We do not need help from England or France for more censorship. I would imagine the converse is true as well. If everyone starts exporting their own censorship, we will all end up under arrest by the KGB for slandering the Soviet State. By the way, what is a "personal detail" and how does one go about sending such a thing to France? Since you claimed that Barry can't write, I should like to point out that you can't spell. I thought we were Educated here? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward
isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) (05/20/86)
In article <20663@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: ! In article <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) writes: ! > . . . ! ! > Simply because your actions aren't illegal where they are perpetrated ! > dosen't mean that you shouldn't consider their legality in all the places ! > where they are manifest. ! > ! > The concept of ! > ! > "I'll do what I like because I'm bigger than you and you ! > can't get me" ! > ! > has always been the cry of the bully and lout, these concepts ! > are out of place in an educated environment. ! ! Oh, balderdash. Mr. Shein's hostility toward self-censorship, which I ! share, is rooted not in "might makes right" but in the special place ! that freedom of expression occupies in the American soul. I'm deeply sorry ! that Europeans and others do not share the unbroken tradition of democracy ! and personal rights that we have enjoyed in the USA for the past two-plus ! centuries. But I'll be damned if we should let some brain-damaged French ! politicians tell us what we can and cannot say on the net and what ! subjects are legally proper to discuss. I'm with Barry. ! Without launching into a diatribe regarding your obviously all-american super-duper razza-mataz innate abundance of democracy and freedom to the exclusion of any lowly non-american bigoted freedom hater and democracy destroyer, which I do NOT think is the issue here, let me just say this. The facts are: (1) You CAN say what you want. (2) It MIGHT be illegal in some other country (3) Is it you or "usenet" or the system admin or whoever who is the vehicle for the illegal publication of your material? (4) If it is NOT you who is responsible, why should anyone else be? Please address this issue and not America Vs the_rest_of_the_world
jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) (05/20/86)
In article <1259@mulga.OZ> isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes: >[...] The facts are: >(1) You CAN say what you want. >(2) It MIGHT be illegal in some other country >(3) Is it you or "usenet" or the system admin or whoever who is the > vehicle for the illegal publication of your material? >(4) If it is NOT you who is responsible, why should anyone else be? >Please address this issue and not America Vs the_rest_of_the_world First off, I've added some newsgroups which are appropriate for the discussion. Usenet, as it exists, is a medium for the free exchange of ideas. If this is not compatible with the laws of another country, it should not be distributed there. Neither individual posters (in other countries) nor Usenet in general (whatever that means) are in violation of any foreign law for publishing these ideas. It is quite obvious to me that no country (other than, perhaps, the United States) has the right to legislate what I may or may not post on an MIT machine, nor what MIT machines may or may not send to other machines at MIT or elsewhere in the United States. Having accepted this (and I don't believe any postings have disputed it), we can look at the parties who _possibly_ could be in violation of some foreign (say French) law. 1) French posters for violating laws about what may or may not be communicated, in the electronic or by print media (which, if either apply to Usenet is not clear). 2) French system administrators and/or owners, for providing equipment to aid those breaking laws in (1), or for breaking laws limiting the publication of certain forms of information and/or expression. Additionally they may be violating laws similarly restricting distribution. 3) Owners/sysadmin of sites in France which import and/or export information and/or forms of expression which are restricted for import and export. 4) (Questionable) Owners/aministrators of sites in other contries which distribute to sites in France, for breaking laws similar to those in (3) Several conclusions may be drawn from this: 1) That the average Usenet contributor, reader, or system owner/administrator is in no way affected by laws other than those applicable in their place of residence, place of work, and the site(s) of machine(s) they communicate with are located. 2) That Usenet readers, contributors, and/or system owners/administrators in coutries which have laws similar to those described above may be limited in what they may read, post, maintain on their machine, allow readers to read, and/or redistribute. 3) That the existance of laws similar to those described above, applied as described in (2) may make the existance of a system like Usenet impractical in certain countries. Note that laws being considered in this country could have similar effects. 4) That by my interpretation, there is very little difference between these issues as applied to Usenet are not significantly different from the same issues as applied to other media. Example: Pornographic materials imported by Japan are "edited," (at least they used to be, I'm not sure any more) but in no sense does this mean that Japan ('s goverment) has any authority over the publishers of this material nor does it mean that these publishers are violating any Japanese laws which may prohibit publishing exactly what they are publishing. That (3) is not desirable is, I think, not disputed. What is disputed is how it can be avoided and/or corrected. I am strongly of the belief that it is for the citizens of a country to avoid and/or correct. I do not want to see Usenet become sanitized medium, reduced to some common level acceptable to even the most restrictive laws. I also do not believe that this could be done. The ability of readers to freely post articles goes beyond what some governments are willing to permit. In summary, I sympathize with users in countries where local laws may prohibit communication of the form Usenet provides, but must respectfully tell them it is their (or if similar laws are passed here, our) problem. Sorry for the length. I hope the content is thoughtful enough to justify it. Jeff Siegal
isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) (05/21/86)
In article <2026@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes:
!
! Usenet, as it exists, is a medium for the free exchange of ideas. If
! this is not compatible with the laws of another country, it should not
! be distributed there.
Agreed. Would you consider say a racist article a `free exchange of ideas'?
Who is to decide that say, the `jive' program posted to net.sources recently
is/is not racist? The point I am making is does the definition of
`free exchange of ideas' allow you to print *anything*. Was Usenet really
created to also cater for the dissemination of racist material?
Don't get me wrong, I am asking the questions, I don't have answers.
!
! 4) That by my interpretation, there is very little difference between
! these issues as applied to Usenet are not significantly different from
! the same issues as applied to other media. Example: Pornographic
! materials imported by Japan are "edited," (at least they used to be,
! I'm not sure any more) but in no sense does this mean that Japan ('s
! goverment) has any authority over the publishers of this material nor
! does it mean that these publishers are violating any Japanese laws
! which may prohibit publishing exactly what they are publishing.
That is not exactly the same. Who is the *importer* of the (un-edited) material?
The importer who also then disseminates this stuff un-edited surely is in
some way responsible.
Is it the FIRST relay machine that gets the news from abroad; is every machine
which does not stop that article from being passed, on also responsible?
Is it the sys admin of the machine? His employer?
!
!
! I am strongly of the belief that it is for the citizens of a country
! to avoid and/or correct.
That was what I originally wanted. Would then the "Do you understand if you
violate any local law in posting this article that *you* are responsible?"
question in postnews, Pnews be a solution? I don't accept the
view that people will just get used to it and type "yes". If they are
lax in reading what they sign it is their responsibility again.
Isaac Balbin.mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (05/21/86)
In article <1261@mulga.OZ> isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes: > [. . .] Would you consider say a racist article a `free exchange of ideas'? Yes. [I'm NOT, repeat NOT, a racist in any way, shape or form.] I still think Isaac is missing the point about what freedom of expression really is, and how it operates in the USA. In our system, you don't get to suppress things because you find them morally offensive. Our leading civil liberties organization, the ACLU, caused a stir of controversy several years ago by defending the right of Nazis to hold a public rally. I hold Nazis and racists in the most odious degree of contempt, but I fully support their right to freedom of expression. The above does not necessarily hold true for Usenet, since the net exists, as one must constantly point out, at the sufferance of the organizations that foot the bill for the traffic. If CSS (seismo) and the mcvax folks decide that they don't want to carry net.politics because it is expensive, wasteful, and could expose either party to legal liability, they have the perfect right to do so, and I can no more object to that than I can object that my local newspaper refuses to pay to print whatever blather I send them. But: I draw a distinction between this and "signing" a statement when I post that I take responsibility for violation of law. The only responsibility I am willing to take is that imposed upon me by local law with regard to my posting. In the USA, this more-or-less reduces to the following (please excuse the possible omissions; it's been a few years since my Constitutional Law class): 1. Incitement to riot and other words presenting a clear and present danger of causing a breach of the peace) is a criminal offense. 2. Disclosure of classified information by persons covered by various federal statutes, and occasionally by other persons, is a criminal offense. 3. Defamation (libel and slander) is a tort (civil wrong). 4. Disclosure of trade secrets and proprietary information by persons bound not to may be a tort or a breach of contract, depending on the nature. 5. Other utterances may be criminal or civil wrongs when they consist of inducement to commit particular crimes or to breach contracts, etc., respectively. Basically, that's IT. If I comply with the above, I am simply NOT going to make any additional assurances that my posting is amenable to French, British, Australian, whatever, law. If the people therein are incapable of electing governments that properly safeguard their own individual liberties while paying lip service to them in the UN charter, then too bad. Let 'em start their own net. The real answer is to urge the governments involved to consider Usenet and the systems that import and distribute information to be "common carriers" as used in the international telecommunications industry. This would provide them the same shield of liability that protects, say, the French PTT from liability when a person outside France calls a person in France on the telephone and makes an illegal communication. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/21/86)
In the first place, people are extrapolating my admittedly emotional statements wildly. I was referring to political views, not publishing people's credit histories or some such. The defense of the freedom to publish political views is something that many of us are quite dogmatic about, sorry, there is just no room for compromise on that issue. Obviously I can't publish on USENET classified information and expect to remain unscathed (although that's a reason I shun security work.) Boy, people love to take a statement, bang it into something unreasonable that's easy to argue with but had little to do with the original statement and then declare themselves the winner. As far as: >How would you feel if I used the net to do something legal in the UK, but was >illegal in the US? within the political realm (which I sincerely believe is what this all started over) I don't believe such an example exists, and if it does, PLEASE PUBLISH IT IMMEDIATELY SO WE CAN STRIKE DOWN THE U.S. LAW, yes, I would love it and I suspect so would many of my compatriots. Of course, such an action requires popular support and if you decide that your right to advertise child porno or something is a political issue don't expect a lot of support. I am sure advocating using USENET for civil disobedience is a not good idea, I just think that the above challenge is empty. -Barry Shein, Boston University
tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (Tanner Andrews) (05/21/86)
In answer to the questions about "personal details" and the french control of their electronic transmission: (1) A "personal detail", in this context, is a french letter. Used. Until used, it is considered impersonal. (2) No, I don't know how you would manage the electronic transmission of one of these things across french borders. -- <std dsclm, copies upon request> Tanner Andrews
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/21/86)
In response to Isaac Balbin:
>Agreed. Would you consider say a racist article a `free exchange of ideas'?
Yes, I would also consider it disgusting and would probably tell the
poster to shut up because everyone thinks s/he's an ass and not worth
carrying. That is, I would hope I don't need laws and the police to
control such things, its inappropriate. Even if they persisted, either
a) they send a few notes here and there and I could ignore them, I
don't care and don't lose sleep over the *existence* of such notes
b) They are blasting the net with volume and that can be dealt with
at that level as with anyone doing such.
I think it's a sad mistake to look towards police authority (I mean
literal police authority, not figurative) to settle such differences,
they never do it very well.
-Barry Shein, Boston Universityjbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (05/21/86)
In article <2026@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes: >Usenet, as it exists, is a medium for the free exchange of ideas. If >this is not compatible with the laws of another country, it should not >be distributed there. Neither individual posters (in other countries) >nor Usenet in general (whatever that means) are in violation of any >foreign law for publishing these ideas. The USA isn't as free as you think, Jeff, and your posting doesn't address the problem. According to your definition, importing Usenet traffic into the US is illegal as well, because a European poster might post a message that is considered legal there but is considered pornography in the US. In some areas the US is less free than, say, Denmark for example. Basically there are four classes of laws that might make a Usenet message illegal in some country (I'm speaking here of Western-style democracies): 1) Libel or slander. As I understand this, the US has a narrower definition of libel than most countries. Just the same, am I as a system administrator in trouble if you smear someone? 2) Obscenity/pornography. Did you know that it's illegal to use four-letter words over the phone in the US? This is never enforced unless someone complains, but you may be violating the law. Similarly, Sen. Paul Trible wants to pass an absolutely ridiculous law restricting computer bbds, that, if passed and enforced, would put net.singles and net.motts out of business and would make us moderate everything. 3) Racism. The US had a lot to do with imposing this kind of law on Europe and Japan at the end of WWII. Some of these laws were (and are) excessive, but millions of dead Jews are quite an incentive to make sure the Nazis don't rise again. A couple of American neo-nazis had a lot to do with keeping net.politics out of Europe. 4) Violation of privacy. Some countries have passed laws protecting the privacy of personal data in computer data bases. These might be construed as applying to Usenet if someone in one of these countries posted a message containing personal information about someone else in violation of that person's wishes. I hope this clarifies your understanding of some of the issues. -- - Joe Buck {ihnp4!pesnta,oliveb,csi}!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California Better living through entropy!
isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) (05/22/86)
I have some more questions arising from the recent articles and mail I received. (1) Who says that USENET is going to mirror US law? (2) What if the majority of countries who get Usenet do not allow, say, racist material? Do the US posters then have to comply? (3) Are we going to have a head count and see which country has the most people who would like to adopt US law as the supremo usenet law maker? (4) Are we going to see who PAYS for the news? Would we then have to possibly bend to the whims of some company(s) who might have stricter/laxer views than the majority? (5) Answer this question truthfully to yourself. An article comes across in, say, net.politics which states simply "I hate all Mordorians*, I would like to form a club, please mail me if you want to support the extinction of Mordorians" goebbels@nazi.hell Okay, freedom of speech, you now know about these people, can react to them etc etc. But, does USENET need this? This I believe is another question. Is it not? * fictitious Isaac Balbin PS This is definitely *NOT* an anti-US diatribe, so please don't react as if it was.
jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) (05/22/86)
In article <230@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
[all about how freedom of expresion really isn't totally free]
Joe,
I think you misinterpreted the purpose of my article. I was NOT to
proposing that someone has the right to post whatever they damn well
please. If that was what I had intended to discuss, I would not have
posted it to net.mail (nor should your partially-accurate discussion
of limits on free speech have been).
The issue I addressed was whether a Usenet user should be forced to
acknowledge his reponsiblity to obey whatever foriegn laws may apply
to his posting, whereever it may be distributed. I argue that no such
responsibility exists.
I hope this makes the context and direction of the my original article
clearer.
Jeff Siegalcycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (05/23/86)
>>>...Consider a user who posts an article (be it locally >>>or world-wide) the material of which, might be considered to be a >>>criminal offence in some country... >>>...(suggests that the posting program should prompt:) >>is this guy kidding? Who's gonna come and get us from these hypothetical >>foreign countries? Hey guy, you just crossed the line where "liberalism" >>and "tolerance" stop dead, I (and I hope most of my compatriots) don't >>"tolerate" the tyranny you describe, that's not a "cosmopolitan" view as >>you seem to imply, that's cowardice. ^^^^^^^^^ >By this do you mean that to respect some other person's point of view, >is cowardly ? Your posting would seem to suggest that the only people >worth paying any attention to are those that can inflict some damage >on you if you ignore them. >There are countries, such as France, with a very different set of laws >from those used in the USA. It is I believe illegal to send personal >details across French borders by Electronic means. Although I don't agree >with this rule it wasn't passed by the French legislature as a personal >challange to every other country in the world. They did it as the elected Perhaps France (or whatever country), or the sites within that country, should be responsible for the content of what is transmitted into their country (ie., they should censor it themselves). For one thing, the logistics of preventing material which may be against the law in some country would be mind-boggling. Also, laws are dynamic, so somebody would have to be constantly checking newly passed and ammeded legislations in all countries the Net reaches. Finally, countries have no legal domain outside their territories anyway, so it really is their problem. >> -Barry Shein, Boston University >Craig. >UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, >DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, >JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. >Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR >Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research Group -- Chris. Intelligent Systems Lab Robotics Institute Carnegie-Mellon University. arpa: cycy@cmu-ri-isl1 uucp: {...![arpa/uucp gateway (eg. ucbvax)]}!cycy@cmu-ri-isl1 "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way." -- Juan Ramon Jimenez
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (05/23/86)
Well, something implores me to jump into this (I even tried lying down and it didn't go away, sorry)... > In article <1259@mulga.OZ> isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes: > >[...] The facts are: > >(1) You CAN say what you want. > >(2) It MIGHT be illegal in some other country As a practical matter, it cannot be illegal in some other country for me to sit here in Somerville, Massachusetts, USA and say something distasteful to a foreign lawmaker. A law forbidding a statement within a jurisdiction can't have effect outside that jurisdiction, and a law forbidding the statement anywhere in the Universe is pretty pointless. Those of us on the side of liberty are not afraid of being dragged out of bed for maligning Gorbachev's tailor (or Mitterrand's, either [Is it against the law in France to misspell his name? I don't have a reference handy... My apologies to anyone burned at the stake for forwarding this message if it is :-) ] ). > >(3) Is it you or "usenet" or the system admin or whoever who is the > > vehicle for the illegal publication of your material? > >(4) If it is NOT you who is responsible, why should anyone else be? > >Please address this issue and not America Vs the_rest_of_the_world > If your government forbids you from receiving certain messages from me, then you'd best prevent receiving ANY messages from me -- your law is your problem, and you can not safely rely on my self-control. If you think that you are being shortchanged by not having the benefit of my glowing wit on those few legal things I say (:-), then you can either take your chances, or work to overturn the authoritarian laws that make concerned that I might say something offensive. Or, in short, if you enjoy surrendering your rights, unplug your modem and cower in the dark. Don't complain to me. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." Jeff Raskin, interviewed in Doctor Dobb's Journal
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/23/86)
This discussion has ignored a fact which makes the whole argument moot. The structure of most of the USA section of usenet is *VERY* anarchic. There is literally nothing preventing a neo-nazi from posting something perfectly dreadful in net.unix, and thence to be transmitted all over the world. Even with the proposed reorganization, this will not change. As long as this situation obtains, the problem cannot be one of preventing the messages from being generated, but to keep them from leaving the country (or if you like, preventing them from entering some other country). How long will this situation remain? Considering the fierce resistance to the kind of centralized review, I would guess things will stay this way for a while. Americans (as various participants in this discussion have demonstrated) tend to be adamant about their free speech rights, and they don't take too well to suggestions/demands from abroad to limit these rights, especially when the proffered reason is simply to comply with a foreign law. C. Wingate
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (05/27/86)
[Are line-eaters illegal in other countries? :-]
It seems to me that much of this discussion is moot. Let us
suppose that someone, joe@host.somewhere.uk, posts a message which is
legal in the UK but not in the US (whether or not this is possible is
irrelevant for the purposes of my discussion). Let's say, for the sake
of argument, that this bizarre law restricting some clown's idea of
`pornography' is passed and the article mentions paintings of nudes.
Surely that is enough to get said clown riled.
Now, let us suppose whatever police force is established to enforce
this law finds the article on machines all over the US. Who is liable?
1) The poster (presumably s/he could be extradited (sp?)).
2) The posting site's SA (extradition again?).
3) The site which transmits it across the pond (owner or SA, same
difference).
4) The site which receives it on this side.
5) Any site which handles it on this side.
6) Any site which is caught with it on this side.
7) Anyone who reads it here.
I would argue we can ignore case 1 because it is about as close to
impossible as you can get to prove that joe@host is indeed the person
responsible for the article. Login codes are broken (happens every day,
probably), and articles can be faked besides (it wouldn't be too hard
for me to make this article appear to come from, let us say, chuq@sun,
or mark@cbosgd, or arndt@squirt.dec, or police@bigbrother.uucp, or
joe@host.uk for that matter). Cases 2, 3, and 4 have the forgery
problem, but in cases 3 and 4 it is easier to make a convicing case
(though the forgery could have occurred on *this* side...). Cases 5 and
7 are ridiculous. Case 7 is simply undetectable and case 5 almost so.
Case 6 is interesting because it is so easy to erase articles
undetectably. I'd love to see someone try to prove in court that
such-and-such was present on machine X...how do we know it was really
machine X, how do we know you didn't fake the entire transcript, etc.
It also suffers from the same problems that occur in trying to prosecute
jaywalkers or speeders; you really can't haul into court everyone on the
road, or in this case, every machine on USEnet.
Admittedly, the last point does not apply in countries with only a
few sites. (Pioneers always have problems :-).
Still, I tend towards the view that if a country puts extreme
restrictions on what can be stored in or transmitted between computers,
it is hardly *our* responsibility to limit ourselves so that *they* can
enjoy USEnet. They have it hard, but anyone in such a country does.
[-: We in North America have nothing to worry about so it's all OK :-]
--
der Mouse
USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
mcvax!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
ARPAnet: utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse@uw-beaver.arpa
"Come with me a few minutes, mortal, and we shall talk."dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (05/29/86)
It seems to me that a lot of this is oversimplified. A sovereign nation
can make anything it wants illegal, including acts outside its borders.
If a US citizen commited espionage by traveling to a foreign country and
while in that foreign country originating a message that revelead
certain information to a foreign government with the intent of injuring
the United States, they would be committing a crime. For example, if I
went to Japan (which has no law against espionage as far as I know) and
while there electronically commnicated secrets to the Tokyo embassy of
the USSR I would clearly be inviolation of US law and might even be
extraditable depending on the treaties between US&Japan. Most people
would think this was a reasonable extra-territorial application of
criminal law. One can think of lots of other examples. What if I sit
in country A and send and receive lots of messages for the purpose of
managing an organized crime syndicate in country B? How much difference
should it make what country I am a citizen or national of? What if
country A is the United States and country B is Canada and the Canadian
crime is the distribution in Canada of hate material that I know is
false which urges the extermination of all X (Jews, blacks, ...
whatever), something which would be allowed in the United States?
Anyway, my point is that real situations can be complicated and I think
that the claim that you can arbitrarily disseminate communications in
one country ignoring all other country's laws is ridiculous.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deerobert@weitek.UUCP (05/30/86)
In article <1261@mulga.OZ>, isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes: > In article <2026@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes: > ... Would you consider say a racist article a `free exchange of ideas'? Of course. The MEANING of the term "free exchange" means that it's not subject to censorship, which in turn implies that it allows unfashionable, outdated, stupid, and nasty ideas. > Who is to decide that say, the `jive' program posted to net.sources recently > is/is not racist? The point I am making is does the definition of > `free exchange of ideas' allow you to print *anything*. Yes. Though if you libel someone you may be liable for civil damages, in a free country there is no prior restraint on publishing. There have been cases in the U.S. where prior restraint has been used, but it's hard to do (because it's blatantly unconstitutional). > That was what I originally wanted. Would then the "Do you understand if you > violate any local law in posting this article that *you* are responsible?" > question in postnews, Pnews be a solution? I don't accept the > view that people will just get used to it and type "yes". If they are > lax in reading what they sign it is their responsibility again. > Isaac Balbin. It certainly doesn't address the problem of people in free countries posting anything they want, with careless disregard for the fascist attitudes of some countries on the net, and the effect it may have on the net there. It certainly doesn't violate any *local* laws for me to heckle the Iranian government, although doing so in Iran might be dangerous. Nor am I going to limit my postings to the least common denominator of allowable topics in all countries on the net. For that matter, I have no idea what kinds of topics individual countries are censoring this week. What topics are taboo in Australia? Japan? England? Barsoom? It won't keep me from posting, but it might cause me to put "Illegal to Read in Barsoom" or "Barsoomians Must Join the Free World Before Reading" on the subject line. (Or, better yet, "Barsoomians: Tired of your worn-out, old-fashioned government? Replace it with a free society and read all the trash you want without guilt or fear! Only $9.95 buys you a Liberty Cap, a photograph of Thomas Jefferson and a box full of inflammatory pamphlets!") -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon "You can't be too rich or too thin" -- Howard Hughes
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (06/02/86)
There may be precedent here. Surely there are communications satelites used for TV, radio, etc, in Europe. Surely the footprint of these birds is bigger than the country they are aimed at. For example, a French satelite might broadcast TV which is legal in France, but which can be picked up by anybody with a dish in Germany, Holland, etc. I can imagine that a French program might violate some law in Germany. I can also imagine that (a) a German citizen might pick it up directly, or (b) a German TV station might pick it up and broadcast a piece on the local evening news. If this is illegal, who is at fault, and what is done? Another possible analogy is ham radio (I think I like this one, it's pretty close.) What is the European law/custom here? If a ham in Germany hears something from France which is illegal in Germany and relays it into Germany, what happens? Finally, I can think of things like the Voice of America, which broadcasts things which are obviously illegal in Russia, but aimed right at them. There isn't anything the Soviets can do about that, except try to jam it with technical means. I suspect the answer may be that if there is a person in the loop, that person acts as a moderator (e.g. the TV news or ham relay.) But if there is no person involved - everybody gets everything automatically, there is nothing that can be done. A third case is Usenet, where there is a computer in the country in question in the loop, but no person moderating everything. I wouldn't worry too much about this. It's possible to post illegal things in the USA too, such as a credit card number, slander/libel, something which is copyrighted, or pornography. We make all reasonable attempts to make sure people don't violate their local laws by posting such things, but we don't have a filter in every state to evaluate local standards of pornography. Mark
rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (06/04/86)
There are several different views that could be taken with reguard to usenet and BBS's in general. 1: Usenet, et al are "mail boxes" which the reciever chooses to read. In this case, within the if the reader is offended by something said in a group, he can "unsubscribe". The "mail" groups are very much like this, but usenet is a little more "public". 2: Boards are "party-line common carriers", again the parties involved can send a great deal of information which the reader "chooses" to "listen to". If you think homosexuality is obscene, then you don't subscribe to motss. The reason the "call me for obscene conversation" numbers are not illegal is because the obscenity is requested by the caller. 3: Boards are "news media". This is definately NOT the case. News media are managed by Editorial staff which monitors both the quality and the content of what is published. In some ways, the division into many groups provides some editorial management, but only the "mod" groups are really editorially managed. 4: Boards are "Bulletin boards". This would be very similar to the boards seen at many shopping centers and grocery stores. Again however, someone can quickly examine the board and find/remove offensive notices. This is not the case with boards which may recieve >4 million lines of new information per day. 5: Boards are "Bathroom Walls" or graffiti boards. This is the least flattering, but most accurate description. At one time, it was quite trivial for me to post as guest, post as another account, switch to a non-existent machine, change to/from lines, or otherwise post anonymously. A system admin would have a hard time protecting his machine from someone who changed his "from" line. Currently, all of these approaches have been discussed. Eventually, there may be a number of different legal types of "boards". Compuserve may be legally different than usenet which may be different than the "background bbs" running on someone's CoCo. What could be done to insure that the net is innoffensive as possible? To begin with, the information in net.announce.newusers is one of the most important. Ideally, that should be the only "default" group that can be read without specifically "subscribing" to it. This group includes postings which describe, in detail what types of information you might be interested in, or want to avoid. Groups should be very specific. For example, if net.singles starts getting some "kinky" topics, it might be appropriate to have a net.singles.kinks group to get that type of thing out of the more general group. Net.general shouldn't even exist, because it is too easy for someone to put something really offensive in that group and the unsuspecting reader could accidentally read it. Cross postings shouldn't be possible. Instead, the posting should be put in one catagory and a "see also" message could be put in the others, which would show the heading and offer the user the opportunity to "call" that article if desired. Anybody should be able to "Kill" an article which is clearly in violation of their confidentiality. Personally, I am suprised at the number of people who put their home phone #, personal mail address, and even social security number on their signature lines. I gave my address once in a technical group and got more junk mail than I had recieved in years. Of course, if someone were to put my VISA number on every restroom wall in town, unless they were actually caught in the act of putting it there, I would have little recourse, except to get a new card. Even if the merchant were to paint over it, there might be some other commode wall that had that number painted on it. Strange as it may seem, even usenet is a controlled distribution. If some company chooses to broadcast their BBS contents over the airwaves, then additional security measures should be taken. But for "common carrier" distributed nets, the componant users should be thought of as "gossip networks" ala the old "party line" phones. Looking for legal infractions that might occur on usenet or any other BBS is a little like looking for a needle in a grain silo. The offensive matter may only be 10 or 20 bytes per billion.
jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) (06/06/86)
In article <880@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP writes: > >As a practical matter, it cannot be illegal in some other country for me to >sit here in Somerville, Massachusetts, USA and say something distasteful to >a foreign lawmaker. If you say it on the net you are in fact publishing your statement in every country that the net is distributed to. You have to take the consequences of any illegalities in your statement, the consequeces being a risk of being taken to court when you visit a country that has a law against public display of the opinions in your statement. Also, you are the only one who can be held responsible. To hold a host responsible would be as absurd as to hold US Mail responsible if you sent your statement by ordinary mail. Jacob Hallen
ricker@bunker.UUCP (ricker) (06/09/86)
In article <597@chalmers.UUCP> jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) writes: >In article <880@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP writes: >> >>As a practical matter, it cannot be illegal in some other country for me to >>sit here in Somerville, Massachusetts, USA and say something distasteful to >>a foreign lawmaker. > >If you say it on the net you are in fact publishing your statement in every >country that the net is distributed to. The poster is not directly publishing his or her article. The poster is submitting it to the net to be published. >Also, you are the only one who can be held responsible. To hold a host >responsible would be as absurd as to hold US Mail responsible if you sent >your statement by ordinary mail. > >Jacob Hallen The comparison of USENET and U.S. Mail is not correct in this context. USENET is more like publishing or other broadcast media. The national gateway only receives one copy of a posted article. That gateway then assumes the responsibility of broadcasting copies of the article. It may be that international law holds the originator responsible for sending illegal materials (I don't know I'm not a lawyer), but I would think any law would have to hold the local receiver/diseminator responsible as well. Anyway, this whole discussion points up the stupidity of censorship. Could you imagine how much more slowly ideas would be shared, if our governments had not allowed a single byte of these discussions be transmitted until they had come up with the "perfect" information control policy?
rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (06/16/86)
In article <1188@bunker.UUCP> ricker@bunker.UUCP (ricker) writes: >In article <597@chalmers.UUCP> jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) writes: >>In article <880@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP writes: >>> >>>As a practical matter, it cannot be illegal in some other country for me to >>>sit here in Somerville, Massachusetts, USA and say something distasteful to >>>a foreign lawmaker. >> >>If you say it on the net you are in fact publishing your statement in every >>country that the net is distributed to. > >The poster is not directly publishing his or her article. The poster is >submitting it to the net to be published. This is only true on a "mod" newsgroup where mail is sent to the moderator. In a "net" newsgroup, publication is accomplished as soon as pnews puts the article in a directory which is accessable to more than one user (/usr/spool/news...). On the other hand, since news is distributed by common carrier, it isn't really "published", any more than a "gossip net" of voice connections would constitute publication. The law is not real clear on what a common carrier network really is. If the same information is distributed by unencrypted broadcast media, THEN it would be publication. >>Also, you are the only one who can be held responsible. To hold a host >>responsible would be as absurd as to hold US Mail responsible if you sent >>your statement by ordinary mail. Of course, the country with a grevance against you would have to prove that you, rather than someone using your login, actually posted the article. Possible, but not easy. > >The comparison of USENET and U.S. Mail is not correct in this context. USENET >is more like publishing or other broadcast media. The national gateway only >receives one copy of a posted article. That gateway then assumes the >responsibility of broadcasting copies of the article. It may be that >international law holds the originator responsible for sending illegal materials >(I don't know I'm not a lawyer), but I would think any law would have to hold >the local receiver/diseminator responsible as well. Telephones have been used for illegal purposes for years, not once has AT&T been held criminally liable. In fact, the courts have ruled that warrants are required even though AT&T may give permission for a phone tap without one, since it is the privacy of the originator, not the common carrier that is being invaded. Internationally, some common carriers may be "tapped" by the government without permission. In those cases, the government might actually request that a host delete an improper message. Of course, finding that message in the 1MB/day might not be so easy :-).
ricker@bunker.UUCP (ricker) (06/18/86)
In article <482@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >This is only true on a "mod" newsgroup where mail is sent to the >moderator. In a "net" newsgroup, publication is accomplished as >soon as pnews puts the article in a directory which is accessable >to more than one user (/usr/spool/news...). > I insist that the person typing the article is only submitting it to be published. Just because the organization which disseminates it relies on automatic equipment does not absolve the organization of the responsibility to police its traffic. Of course it is almost impossible to police this much traffic. That is why censorship sucks. +---------------+ +----------------+ +---------------+ | Author |--------->| Publisher |----->| Subscriber | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | +---------------+ | |----->| Subscriber | | | +---------------+ +----------------+ If USENET only passed on all traffic as bitstreams then it might have the same standing as a company operating a voice switch. But USENET organizes the data into semantically logical sets including moderators (editors) which to me is a clear analogy to hard-copy publishing. I am not, however, saying that USENET should be held liable for distributing . . . hmmm . . . what phrase? . . .illegal ideas? :> If eliminate moral censorship, we lessen these nit-picky arguments also.
alang@masscomp.UUCP (Alan Groupe) (06/19/86)
Of course, a number of computer bulletin boards have been shut down (and machines confiscated?) because of certain postings. Alan
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (06/19/86)
In article <482@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >Of course, the country with a grevance against you would have to prove >that you, rather than someone using your login, actually posted the >article. Possible, but not easy. Depends on the country. Under some legal systems, the burden of proof is on the defendant. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sob@soma.UUCP (Stan Barber) (06/23/86)
Speaking as a long time BBS system operator (SOBBS Test Mode, since 1980),
I have followed the issue of Public BBS operations for some time. To my
knowledge the only BBS's that have been successfully shutdown are those
that the phone companys have had shut down due to "phreaking" information.
In every case that I am aware of, the BBS sysop did not discourage such
activity.
--
Stan uucp:{shell,rice,drillsys}!soma!sob Opinions expressed
Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine &
Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9252 noone else's.