TK0JUT2%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu (05/31/91)
**************************************************************************** >C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D< >D I G E S T< *** Volume 3, Issue #3.18 (May 28, 1991) ** ** SPECIAL ISSUE: GENIE ON-LINE CONFERENCE: FREE SPEECH AND PRIVACY ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet) ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / / Bob Kusumoto AGING ARROGANTIST: Brendan Kehoe +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest. Back issues are also available on Compuserve (in: DL0 of the IBMBBS sig), PC-EXEC BBS (414-789-4210), and at 1:100/345 for those on FIDOnet. Anonymous ftp sites: (1) ftp.cs.widener.edu (192.55.239.132); (2) cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu; (3) dagon.acc.stolaf.edu (130.71.192.18). E-mail server: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu. COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is cited. Some authors, however, do copyright their material, and those authors should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to the Computer Underground. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The following is an edited transcript of a real-time conference held in the Public Forum Nonprofit Connection (PF*NPC) Roundtable on GEnie (General Electric Network for Information Exchange). Copyright 1991. Reprinted with permission. Finding CuD on GEnie: Back issues and selected other items from the CuD archives are located in the Legal Forum (LAW) and Public Forum Nonprofit Connection (PF*NPC) libraries. Contacting CuD on GEnie: CuD readers without Internet access may contact the moderators via GEnie email to: GRMEYER ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Free Speech and Privacy Online Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow Public Forum* NonProfit Connection (page 545) Real time conference (RTC) 9 pm ET Sunday, May 12 ------------------------------- [minutes of the RealTime Conference, captured & edited by Ric R.HELTON] Why do I have to tie my car to the parking meter? It's hard to govern new technologies with old laws. When wiretap technology let the government listen in without physical trespass, for example, existing privacy laws didn't protect telephone calls. In today's electronic communication, rights of free speech and privacy may be violated by yesterday's policies. To address the social and legal issues involved in computer-based communication and information, Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow last June founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Lyricist for the Grateful Dead and former Republican candidate for the Wyoming State Senate, Barlow is a retired cattle rancher who describes himself as a "hippie mystic and professional techno-crank." He's working on a book called _Everything We Know Is Wrong_. Founder of Lotus Development Corporation and ON Technology, Mitch Kapor interested in the future of computers and networks and is active on the Well and in the Internet community. According to the EFF, electronic mail and computer conferencing enable us to build online communities, "the first settlements on an electronic frontier." But, in a new form of frontier injustice, government raids on bulletin board systems have gone beyond legitimate prosecution of computer crimes. Through programs in public education and policy development, the EFF hopes to extend "our society's highest traditions of the free and open flow of information and communication." Join Kapor and Barlow in a realtime discussion in the Public Forum*NonProfit Connection on May 12 at 9 p.m (ET). For more information about these issues and the EFF, look in the PF*NPC library (keyword: EFF) or bulletin board (Category 9, Electronic Networking). To get to the Public Forum*NPC, type PF. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In Attendance: [Mitch] PRESS30 [John Perry] PRESS27 [Tom] SHERMAN [Paul] CHERNOFF [Ric] R.HELTON [Sherry] S.PERUZZI [Sarah] CALC-SMC [Steve] S.RATZLAFF [steve] S.AVES1 [GHANA JACK] J.COBB1 [Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER [Paul] LONE.WOLF [[frosty]] R.JONES113 [Tom] T.YERGEAU T.HAY4 [Robert] LAW-ASST [Linda] L.MCKENNEY [Satish] AFOS [Anne] A.BUBNIC1 [Rick] R.ADAMS42 E.KUNIN S.PELLAT VASSILOPOULO D.PAN1 [PETER] S.MURPHY3 C.NELSON28 J.DOUGLAS5 M.VARIO <[Tom] SHERMAN> Here we go . . . <[John Perry] PRESS27> Ok. Now they can see us but we can't see them unless they "raise their hands?" <[Tom] SHERMAN> Mitch and John can talk but, for the moment, no one else can. . . <[John Perry] PRESS27> Kinda scary... <[Tom] SHERMAN> In a minute, we'll begin with Mitch and John's opening remarks . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> Followed by the questions which people have already posted . <[Tom] SHERMAN> And then you can ask questions "from the floor" . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> To ask questions, just type /RAI on a new line. I'll see your raised hand and call on you one at a time. <[John Perry] PRESS27> That was cacophony. This is too quiet... <[Tom] SHERMAN> It's possible that the press may want to print some of the material from this conference.... <[Tom] SHERMAN> If you want to be off the record, please say so... <[John Perry] PRESS27> Oh, I rather doubt that given the demands of the medium. <[John Perry] PRESS27> That is, I can't imagine either of us saying anything quotable under these rather pressing circumstances. <[John Perry] PRESS27> But if they choose, anything I say at any time is available for public use. <[Tom] SHERMAN> OK, Mitch first . . . you're ON! GA <[Mitch] PRESS30> Hi, everyone! <[John Perry] PRESS27> Hi from me too. <[John Perry] PRESS27> I've seen audiences with a flat affect before, but this is ridiculous. <[Mitch] PRESS30> I'm glad you're all here... <[Mitch] PRESS30> We're probably one of the larger simultaneous gatherings in Cyberspace at this very moment. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Well, don't forget the tinyMUDS <[Tom] SHERMAN> Let's start with the posted questions . . . <[Mitch] PRESS30> Let's start with some questions to get things going. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Here's the first one... and to answer it , you may want to say a few words about operation Sun Devil for those who don't know . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> What is the current state of sysop liability for a hobby BBS; how will that change in the future? Can I protect my system from Sun-Devil-esque seizure without impeding normal use? <[Tom] SHERMAN> John and Mitch are composing their answers. Here they come <[Mitch] PRESS30> The current state of liability is pretty unclear. If you're looking for guarantees there are none. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Sysop liability is one of the areas of ambiguity which EFF was established to deal with. It is is not at all clear. <[Mitch] PRESS30> One of the reasons we are working with Steve Jackson in his law suit against the Secret Service and others is to establish in a court of law basic... <[John Perry] PRESS27> However, I am strongly of the opinion that the best way to secure liberty is to exercise it. If you get timid... <[Mitch] PRESS30> constitutional protections for bulletin board sysops and users - that they may not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and that their postings are <[Mitch] PRESS30> fully protected by the first amendment. <[John Perry] PRESS27> and start curtailing your BBS, no one will ever know what your real constraints were. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Steve Jackson Games is the Austin firm which was raided by the Secret Service last year. They had several computers seized, their BBS taken down, and all copies of a new manuscript taken also... <[Mitch] PRESS30> They weren't suspected of any crime, but it almost put them out of business. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Related to Steve Jackson only by involving some of the same characters in the Secret Service was Operation Sun Devil. This undertaking was under the guidance.. <[John Perry] PRESS27> of Gail Thackeray, the of the Arizona AG's office. In early 1990, Operation Sun <[John Perry] PRESS27> Devil caused the confiscation of 23,000 disks, 28 computers, 10 BBS's in 14 cities. To date there has only been one arrest. No equipment has been returned. <[Mitch] PRESS30> There are files in the public forum library here. Search for EFF. <[Tom] SHERMAN> OK here's the 2nd, related question . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> Are there any cases out there were the courts are indeed deciding whether one has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in regards to one's electronic data? How does one protect from having all of one's records seized (a la Steve Jackson Games)? GA <[Mitch] PRESS30> The Electronic Communications Privacy Act protects the privacy of electronic... <[John Perry] PRESS27> What we're trying to establish in the SJG case is a new understand of the application of the 4th Amendment in cases of digital search. We're concerned <[Mitch] PRESS30> mail. The bill was passed in 1986. The Steve Jackson case raises ECPA claims. <[John Perry] PRESS27> that it is not clear to everyone that a search in which they take all electronic data is grossly overbroad. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Privacy rights per se can't insulate you from having your records seized... <[Mitch] PRESS30> But proper application of the fourth amendment would have narrowed or eliminated most of the searches and seizures of the last year. <[John Perry] PRESS27> In fact, the word privacy is never used in the Constitution and is a fairly recently developed legal concept. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Next question . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> In the BellSouth case where Riggs, Darden and Grant were sentenced ( quite disproportional to the crime ), will the EFF promote an appeal for a more realistic sentence for these youths ? <[Tom] SHERMAN> ga <[Mitch] PRESS30> We have been speaking with their attorneys about the possibility of working on an appeal. Nothing definitive however. <[John Perry] PRESS27> That's a tough one. They plead guilty, you know. <[Mitch] PRESS30> I certainly think the sentences were disproportionate. We've written something about this in an earlier issue of the EFF News which should be around here somewhere. <[Tom] SHERMAN> And a related question . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> What cases that are currently in session is the EFF working on ? ga <[Mitch] PRESS30> Steve Jackson games. Other things still pre-filing. <[Mitch] PRESS30> We also provide referrals and informal advice to lots of people who call the legal hotline. 617 864 0665. <[John Perry] PRESS27> There are a number of cases which we're tracking at the moment, but Steve Jackson Games is our only active litigation at the moment. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Moving right along . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> Is there any thought being given by any organizations to the rights of consumers of BB services for the long term. Will there be greater government regulation and will it protect the consumer? What should our rights be? How should we protect them? ga <[Mitch] PRESS30> More government regulation could well mean fewer rights, not more. It all depends... <[John Perry] PRESS27> Personally, I don't look at this as a consumer's rights issue. To me a BBS is a place (at least some of the time) where free speech and assembly ought to be <[Mitch] PRESS30> We should start with a recognition that the Constitutional protections of free speech and freedom of assembly should be extended to Cyberspace. <[John Perry] PRESS27> protected as in any other place. These are not just consumer issues, this is the commons of the future. <[John Perry] PRESS27> The problem with BBS's is that they are sometimes rather like places, sometimes rather like post offices, and sometime rather like newspapers. We have to start <[Mitch] PRESS30> A.J. Liebling said: There's freedom of the press for the person who owns one. Similarly with BBS'es. If you don't like the policies of one, start your own. <[John Perry] PRESS27> developing a comprehensive legal model for what they are and how to deal with them. <[Mitch] PRESS30> The role government could play is to see that we have a first class communications infrastructure which would support a great diversity of online services. Just as govt has invested in the postal service and highway systems, it has an obligation to the p <[Mitch] PRESS30> The govt needs to make sure that whoever wires the nation, brings fiber to the home does it in a way that promotes access and diversity. <[John Perry] PRESS27> This is an area where there is vigorous internal discussion within EFF. <[Tom] SHERMAN> [Sysop note: an excellent article on Highways of the Mind will soon be posted in our library] <[Mitch] PRESS30> Yes, we argue with each other a lot. <[John Perry] PRESS27> That too. <[Mitch] PRESS30> The EFF has liberals, libertarians, and lots of folks in between. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Does a sysop who receives donations for his BBS qualify as commercial and subject to ECPA 1986 for making his mail private? <[John Perry] PRESS27> Boy, now there' <[Mitch] PRESS30> If a BBS is generally available to the public, it falls under ECPA. It doesn't matter whether it's a profit-seeking enterprise or not. <[John Perry] PRESS27> s a tough question. I think it's safe to say there their is neither law nor precedent which would answer it. What would be the right answer? Let's first determine that and proceed from there. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Next question is a long one . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> Do BB's merely solicit subscribers as passive consumers, or act to encourage investors (of intellectual property) into an information brokerage? ... <[Tom] SHERMAN> Is any valued contribution of intellectual property considered a form of investment in a BB ? If so, do investors have a right to expect a fair return on that <[Tom] SHERMAN> investment?. . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> If so, what rights ? A right to access their investment from the service provider ? A right to a portion of profit made from their investment by the service provider ? What is fair ? Could a failure to reciprocate be misconstrued as exploitation ? GA <[Mitch] PRESS30> This sounds like a theory for a legal brief. If the poster is here, perhaps he or she would care to restate live. <[John Perry] PRESS27> DYeah. I'm sure there is a point of view being pushed here, but I'm not sure what it is yet. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Yes, he is here and I'll call on him in a minute. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Next question . . . <[Mitch] PRESS30> Where are we all going out to eat after this is over? <[Tom] SHERMAN> John, would you talk about the techniques the authorities are using to infiltrate groups of hackers. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Well, I would say that the techniques they are using are fairly standard. They are trying to get people on the inside and having the usual slender but significant amount of success. It doesn't look much different from the methods used to infiltrate the dr (sic) <[John Perry] PRESS27> and fringe political movements. In other words, business as usual. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Next question . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> Are BBS users not entitled to some privacy rights deriving from the fact that they are sending information though telephone lines? <[Tom] SHERMAN> ga <[Mitch] PRESS30> Public postings on bulletin boards wouldn't seem to gain privacy rights simply from being transmitted over the telephone. <[John Perry] PRESS27> I think the problem is that a BBS is a public facility (usually) using a connection which is usually reserved to private use. Muddies the water. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Writers of postings certainly would seem to have some intellectual property rights in their postings, but what those rights are is on shifting sands. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Mitch and John have asked that we open this up now. If you've a question, please /RAIse your hand <[Tom] SHERMAN> First question, Ric <[Tom] SHERMAN> Room is now in the talk mode. <[Ric] R.HELTON> Thanks for coming tonight... I have two short questions.... <[John Perry] PRESS27> You're welcome. <[Ric] R.HELTON> First, on public vs. private.. Just what makes the BBS system... <[Ric] R.HELTON> ...a "private" or a "public" system, and therefore under ECPA? <[Ric] R.HELTON> GA <[Mitch] PRESS30> I'm not a lawyer, but... If the BBS service is generally available to members of the public then user mail is protected under ECPA <[Mitch] PRESS30> ga <[Tom] SHERMAN> Ric, any follow up <[Tom] SHERMAN> ga <[Ric] R.HELTON> ...as opposed to a close group of friends? <[John Perry] PRESS27> I think that's right. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Ghana Jack, next question please. GA <[Ric] R.HELTON> Also, when an online service retransmits messages to other users, is the.... <[Ric] R.HELTON> ...online service itself held responsible for the message, being in essence the <[Ric] R.HELTON> ..speaker in that case? (and not the original author?) <[Ric] R.HELTON> GA and done. <[Mitch] PRESS30> The degree of liability of the service is absolutely unclear under the law. It may depend on factors such as whether they usually act as a pure conduit... <[Mitch] PRESS30> or whether they screen material. This is in the case of public messages. <[John Perry] PRESS27> It is generally our position that a BBS cannot be held responsible for the positions taken by the people who post on it. The only reason we're not adamant on that point is that we want to retain some sysop authority... <[Mitch] PRESS30> Legislation is probably needed here. <[Mitch] PRESS30> I agree with John on this last point. <[Ric] R.HELTON> Thanks. <[John Perry] PRESS27> It may be completely impractical for the sysop to screen larger bulletin boards. Does this mean that only small boards should be liable? <[Tom] SHERMAN> Ghana Jack, your question? GA <[GHANA JACK] J.COBB1> Gentlemen,what was the reason behind the SJG and Sun-Devil raids to begin with? And also,how is govt. dealing with bona fide criminal use of BBS systems,such as drug trafficking,pedophilia and child pornography? <[GHANA JACK] J.COBB1> GA <[Mitch] PRESS30> The real reason behind the SJG raid may have been confusion, but you'd really have to ask the Secret Service and others. <[John Perry] PRESS27> 4CThe reason behind the SJG was that SJG had employed a member of the Legion of Doom who was though to have a file, the E911 file, which the SS thought of as a kind of smoking gun. They confiscated everything is search of that file. Which no one at SJG had. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Sun Devil raids, we are told, have to do with investigations of credit card and telephone access code fraud... <[Mitch] PRESS30> But as so little has come out of Sun Devil, we can't really evaluate this... <[John Perry] PRESS27> The Sun Devil raids were, according to their architect Gail Thackeray, exclusive directed at traffic in stolen cards and codes. But, until there are some actual arrests, we can't know what they were really about. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Law enforcement (LE) needs to be sufficiently prepared and educated to spend their resources chasing down the real criminal activity, whether or not it takes place using a computer. <[Mitch] PRESS30> GA <[Tom] SHERMAN> Jack, any follow-up question? <[GHANA JACK] J.COBB1> I don't think the 2nd part of my question was addressed,gentlemen. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Regarding the second part of the question: If proper guidelines and training were in place, then LE would be able to go after pedophiles who use BBSes... <[GHANA JACK] J.COBB1> In other words,nothing is being done? <[Mitch] PRESS30> (to cite a favorite examples) in way that protected their rights and everyones. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Well, you're right, Jack. And the reason we didn't answer it is because we don't know what all they're looking at the moment. But I personally don't think that pedophilia is sufficient cause to disrupt freedom of association. <[Mitch] PRESS30> To the contrary, the EFF is involved in serious projects to work out search and seizure guidelines with agencies such as the FBI. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Frosty, your question? <[[frosty]] R.JONES113> When can/can not eMail on a BBS be monitored other than a search warrant ??? <[John Perry] PRESS27> What mitch said <[[frosty]] R.JONES113> ga <[GHANA JACK] J.COBB1> Conspiracy is not freedom of association. <[GHANA JACK] J.COBB1> sorry <[Mitch] PRESS30> On a system like Prodigy, Genie, or the Well which is a public system, email cannot be monitored! Really, it's illegal. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Well, the fact that they look so much like one another from differing perspectives is precisely the problem. There has been a lavish over-use of the conspiracy statutes in this country. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Frosty, follow-up? <[[frosty]] R.JONES113> So, on public BBS that are operated throughout the country, Email is not supposed to be monitored ??? What about SysOps that leave the monitor on during company being in the area ??? <[Mitch] PRESS30> If the sys op creates the legitimate impression that it does offer a private mail messaging service (not all boards do) then what you suggest would not be <[Mitch] PRESS30> kosher. <[John Perry] PRESS27> The ECPA seems to assure the privacy of your e-mail. However, this doesn't appear to apply to systems which are internal to a corporation. Or the government for that matter. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Gordon, your question? <[Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER> Greetings. Has the EFF had time (or interest) to formulate a stance on the recently introduced bill to require govt plaintext access to encrypted text? GA <[Mitch] PRESS30> Yes, we've written a letter to the relevant senators... <[John Perry] PRESS27> Our position is strongly against Senate Bill 266, which doesn't appear likely to pass in any case. But we haven't seen the last of this. <[Mitch] PRESS30> There is strong opposition to the bill from pro-privacy interests who are in the process of meeting with Biden's staff, FBI, and others. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Gordon, follow-up? <[Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER> Good enough, I assume there will be a public announcement of your position at the appropriate time then. I'll shut up and let someone else jump in here. Thanks <[Tom] SHERMAN> Steve, your question? <[steve] S.AVES1> What should non-sysops be concerned about with the Steve Jackson case? And lastly, what can people like myself do? GA. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Actually, we hadn't considered making a big public announcement about it. Maybe we should. <[Mitch] PRESS30> User email was seized in the SJG case. This should be a concern... <[Mitch] PRESS30> Read the Genie library. Get on the EFF mailing list. Write your congressperson. <[John Perry] PRESS27> The reason anyone should be concerned is that Steve Jackson's 1st and 4th Amendment right are also their own. If the government can widely broaden acceptable search boundaries in electronic media, the gap with widen elsewhere. <[Tom] SHERMAN> STeve, follow-up? <[steve] S.AVES1> Yes... <[John Perry] PRESS27> Yeah. I agree with Mitch. The first order of business is to make yourself informed. <[Mitch] PRESS30> And then tell friends. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Gordon says - and read Computer Underground Digest. <[John Perry] PRESS27> "Right. <[steve] S.AVES1> So basically I should be concerned about freedom of speech, not so much with having police show up at my home? GA and done <[Mitch] PRESS30> Unless you have some specific reason to be concerned about the police showing up, I'd be more concerned about freedom of speech. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Frosty, your next question? <[[frosty]] R.JONES113> What is the EFF's position on Tribe's proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution ??? <[Mitch] PRESS30> If the constitution is properly interpreted, we don't need another amendment to protect rights in digital media. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Tribe's speech in which he proposed the amendment was an attention getter though. GA. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Personally, I don't think it's necessary. The Constitution ought to be quite flexible enough to cover new media. However, he uses as effective rhetorical technique in putting the proposal that way. <M.VARIO> has left. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Frosty, follow-up? <[[frosty]] R.JONES113> None now , ga <[Tom] SHERMAN> Gordon, how can we get CuD <[Paul] CHERNOFF> has left. <[Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER> Well, if you have net access send a note to Jim Thomas, my co-editor at TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET. We'll add... <S.MURPHY3> is here. <[Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER> you to the list for the next issue. It goes out about weekly. Back issues are available, (tho not all of 'em) in the LAW RT here on GEnie. ... <[Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER> It is also available on many BBS' and other sites around the country. GA <[John Perry] PRESS27> And I highly recommend it. <[Tom] SHERMAN> OK, we've got time for only one more question . . . <[Tom] SHERMAN> Then we'll wrap up the formal session and anyone can stay to chat... <[Tom] SHERMAN> Last question: Peter. <S.MURPHY3> Hi. Sorry I was delayed. I'd like to know whether the online forum of today, the town commons, needs to respect the freedom to speak of the contributors it solicits <[Mitch] PRESS30> Sure. But what are you getting at? <S.MURPHY3> Currently, intellectual property (of the contributor) can be denied upon their removal from a system ... should it be so? <[John Perry] PRESS27> That doesn't clarify your question. At least, I don't think it does. <S.MURPHY3> Too much for 256 characters...Ok, should a service provider (such as GEnie) have the right, notwithstanding, to remove any person for any reason whatsoever? <[Mitch] PRESS30> You may be getting at the issue of whether the power of the private operator of a system to control use should be restricted in some fashion. Is this so? <S.MURPHY3> Yes...actually, the degree of control. <[Mitch] PRESS30> There are many stupid and self-defeating things a service provider might do in refusing service to someone. We've all seen this... <[John Perry] PRESS27> Well, I suppose their right to boot you is vested in the fact that these are private institutions and not public ones. Even there the issue is clouded by things like the Pruneyard Case which assured free speech in Shopping Malls. <[Mitch] PRESS30> But I don't see any way to legally restrict them from slitting their own throats without also putting in jeopardy the ability of a sysop or host to maintain an... <[Mitch] PRESS30> inviting atmosphere. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Peter, follow-up? <S.MURPHY3> True John, but as they solicit your intellectual property (your posts) don't you have a right to retrieve that intellectual property...or access it back if your booted off? <[Mitch] PRESS30> It depends on the policy of the system. On the Well for instance, you own your own words, even if they kick you off. <[John Perry] PRESS27> Well, I personally don't regard my postings as intellectual property any more than the things I say in casual conversation, but I am probably in the minority there. <[Mitch] PRESS30> Of course, if there were a different kind of subscriber agreement this might not supply. <S.MURPHY3> But that begs the question, what are your rights to ownership? <[John Perry] PRESS27> Yeah, this is a very challenging issue. <[Mitch] PRESS30> It's a complicated issue and the thin cyberspace connection we have here does not do justice to it. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Mitch and John have already stayed here longer than I asked them to, and it's time to call the formal RTC to a close . . . <S.MURPHY3> Thanks Mitch, John ... I know it can't be resolved here. It is a challenging issue. Is there somewhere you can be reached for further dialog? <[John Perry] PRESS27> Thanks, for "coming? everyone. Hope to "see" you again sometime. <[Mitch] PRESS30> I think I'm going to take up the issue of control of postings with our attorneys... <[Mitch] PRESS30> just to get some ideas going. GA. <[Tom] SHERMAN> Please join me in thanking John and Mitch for taking the time and effort to come online and talk with us <[Mitch] PRESS30> Thanks for having us. <[Sherry] S.PERUZZI> Thank you so much, Mitch and John -- this was fascinating! <[Sarah] CALC-SMC> Thanks for coming! <[[frosty]] R.JONES113> The GCMS thanks you guys <S.MURPHY3> Thanks again! <[Steve] S.RATZLAFF> Thank you! <[Ric] R.HELTON> *applause* *applause* That's a lot guys! We appreciate your time! <[Paul] LONE.WOLF> Thanks guys! <[Gordon (CuD)] GRMEYER> Danka <[steve] S.AVES1> Thanks a lot for your time. You'll hear from me at Eff. <[Linda] L.MCKENNEY> Thanks guys! <[Tom] SHERMAN> Those who want to stay to chat are welcome to ! <[Mitch] PRESS30> has left. <[John Perry] PRESS27> has left. ------------------------------- [end transcript] For more information on the Electronic Frontier Foundation, search the Public Forum * NonProfit Connection file library! On GEnie, move 545;3 and search the directory on the keyword EFF. There are several good files on privacy issues, free speech, censorship and other related topics as well.... Search on obvious keywords. Use the PF*NPC as your research database for all information of public interest, and be sure to visit the Bulletin Board as well! EOF ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ **END OF CuD #3.18** ********************************************************************