eifrig@cs.jhu.edu (Jack Eifrig) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >From article <eifrig.675550113@voronoi.cs.jhu.edu>, by eifrig@cs.jhu.edu (Jack Eifrig): > >>>No, USENET is not a RIGHT. It is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked for >>>abuse, just like driving a car. >> >> These kind of statements really annoy me. What do you mean, "it's >> a privilege"? Do you mean that only people of royal blood can drive cars >> or post to Usenet or some such nonsense? While I'm sure that certain >> elements of the government would like to think that they can revoke >> people's driving licenses without due process, people get very unhappy >> when it attempts such. > > [comments concerning Usenet deleted.] > >I run a Fidonet BBS (not a Usenet node). I have to be VERY careful about >the traffic on the BBS. For example, no business messages otherwise the >telephone company will consider me a "business" and charge higher rates. > >I also have to ensure that my board doesn't turn into a "Pirate" board. The >government would be quite happy to confiscate my equipment if they thought >that I was aiding a criminal in illegal activities, like violating copyright, >etc. This can be as simple as two users sending mail explaining how to crack >copyrighted programs, or advertising that they will give away copies of their >copyrighted program to people who ask ... This brings up a very interesting point: the rights of Sysops to monitor their traffic and their liabilities if their users engage in illegal activity. Now recent Federal legislation makes it clear that if I'm a com- mercial e-mail gateway, I don't have the blanket legal authority to monitor electronic traffic through my system. On the other hand, seizures of systems (alluded to above) seems to imply that the enforcement arm of the government intends to hold the operator of a gateway _liable_ for any illegal activity connected with its operation. Does anyone have any info. about how the courts intend to resolve this conflict? >There is no RIGHT for ANYONE to do ANYTHING on my system. I own it, I make up >the rules. I decide who can use it, I decide who can't. If my rules are >too restrictive, then users can get access on another machine. Don't be too sure that you have the right to just decide whom you will allow to use your system; this is clearly not absolute. For example, you will get into trouble if you try to restrict access to your BBS to only white people, say, or men only. These are obviously blatant examples, but I'm not sure where the line is. >If someone is trying to use MY equipment >in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those >people off *MY* computer. Again, I wouldn't bet the house on this. If I were running an adult- oriented BBS in San Francisco (where there is a strong gay-rights ordinance in effect, I believe) and I refused to allow any gay-oriented traffic on my system, I'd imagine that I'd get into trouble. The legal waters in this area are murky and uncharted. Unfortunately, there's very little guidance available for Sysops. In other words: "Good luck Jim! As always, if you or any member of your IM force are captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds ...." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Everyone who becomes a lawyer must be mentally defective by nature or bound to become so in time." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
afoiani@nmsu.edu (Anthony "Tkil" Foiani) (05/31/91)
I don't know the law on this either. But my feelings are with the person who says 'this is my system, I will say who will use it'. Can I say "I won't let colored people into my house?" If this is legal, then I see no reason to extend this analogy to my BBS or whatever. If that is illegal... I'm scared. ObPC: Please do not infer that I dislike blacks. *sigh*. Tony -- Tony Foiani a.k.a. Tkil (afoiani@nmsu.edu) or (mcsajf@nmsuvm1.bitnet) Supporting: Unix / DOS / VMS / Macintosh / "What's this?" "As the water flows over the bridge, | As we walk on the Floodland | "Rain From Heaven" As we walk on the water, we forget | _Gift_ We forget. Rain from Heaven." | The Sisterhood
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (05/31/91)
afoiani@nmsu.edu (Anthony "Tkil" Foiani) writes: >Can I say "I won't let colored people into my house?" If this is >legal, then I see no reason to extend this analogy to my BBS or >whatever. You can *say* that. You can also get flamed (in a real world sense) if you *say* that in the wrong place. However, there's nothing illegal about practicing that attitude...assuming it is your house. I think this has problems extending to BBSes and USENET access sites. These are not "houses" but those that claim to be "public access sites" would definately have problems with that kind of attitude. Especially if said. It would be good advice to keep racist/sexist/etcist opinions to yourself. The real issue is not what you say about a group, but how you deal with a specific incident and why. >ObPC: Please do not infer that I dislike blacks. *sigh*. Who asked you if you did or you didn't? <grin> -- Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh You possess only what will not be lost in a shipwreck.
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/31/91)
From article <1991May30.222230.12898@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, by dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes): > afoiani@nmsu.edu (Anthony "Tkil" Foiani) writes: > >>Can I say "I won't let colored people into my house?" If this is >>legal, then I see no reason to extend this analogy to my BBS or >>whatever. > > I think this has problems extending to BBSes and USENET access sites. These > are not "houses" but those that claim to be "public access sites" would > definately have problems with that kind of attitude. Especially if said. My original point was that there is no "RIGHT" for anyone to use my computer for any reason that I don't want them to use it for. If I bought the computer, and pay for it's operation, then I have the perfect right to say only my buddies can use it, and no one else can. I also have the right to say that if you DO use it, you have to play by my rules. I don't agree with the racist bent of this. I detest the idea of limiting access to a BBS or computer simply because of the colour of a person's skin. HOWEVER, this is the case of "Even though I don't agree with what you are saying, I will defend your right to say it". I don't like the idea of bigotry among computer sysops, but I defend the right of any sysop to operate HIS equipment the way HE sees fit, so long as it does not break any laws. As to the RIGHTS. If people had RIGHTS to use my machine, then I could not deny them access to it. However, at any time, if I don't like what is going on with the machine, I am free to pull the plug and disconnect from Usenet, Fidonet, or whatever. The users have no say in the matter. In fact, just recently, my fees to connect to the fidonet echos went from $60 per year to well over $250 a year (paid by my own pocket, not the office). As the owner of the equipment, I exercised my authority to cut out most of the Fidonet newsgroups to get my budget back in order. If people had "Rights" to those newsgroups, then I wouldn't have been able to take them away. - Kevin Lowey
mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) (06/02/91)
You bought it and paid for it in the USA, right? Uncle Sam may disagree with your vehemence. Not knowing much about Canada's legal system, though, your perspective may be different. But it *isn't* just race, race is just an *example*. What if you decided to discriminate against gun owners who talk on your BBS about hunting beavers? And the Canadian version of the NRA gets legal about it and hauls you into court? What then? The key is that you're providing a *PUBLIC* service. By doing so, you give the government a RIGHT to interfere. -- Scott
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (06/04/91)
Look, the real issue is:
Are you providing a PUBLIC service (and are thereby subject to
laws, rules and regulations regarding public services, but also,
perhaps, can receive monetary subsidies to help pay for it)?
or
Are you providing a PRIVATE service available to those who YOU
decide to allow? You CAN run a PRIVATE service if you choose to do
so. Also, you can make your bulletin board system INVITATION only -
you can make it any way you want. As long as you don't let EVERYONE
log on and use the system (ie., you have some sort of registering
service which DOES NOT include a GUEST account), you're probably ok
discriminating against whoever you choose, provided you set it down as
a written policy. Certainly, the KKK doesn't have a bylaw that says
they are, of course, allowing blacks to join if they want, as they
can't discriminate due to federal statutes.
----------------------------------|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| "He divines remedies against injuries; | "Words are drugs." |
| he knows how to turn serious accidents | -Antero Alli |
| to his own advantage; whatever does not | |
| kill him makes him stronger." | "Culture is for bacteria." |
| - Friedrich Nietzsche | - Christopher Hyatt |
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun1.175017.6373@rock.concert.net> mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes: > The key is that you're providing a *PUBLIC* service. By doing so, > you give the government a RIGHT to interfere. It's just too easy. ian