telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/22/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Nov 84 21:42:55 EST Volume 4 : Issue 125
Today's Topics:
BBS filter?
strange charging for certain numbers, continued
misc. topics
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #124
BBS Liability
Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #123
the BBS case continues
the BBS case continues
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 17:19:03 EST
From: Craig MacFarlane <cmacfarl@BBNCCJ.ARPA>
Subject: BBS filter?
To: telecom@bbncca.arpa
How about running all incoming msgs though a filter to scan for
naughty words,politicians names, numbers like credit card numbers, and
any other things that might question the intent of the msg. After the
flag goes up, put the msg in a file to look at by the sysop with time
and date. After editing he/she could put the msg back on for the public
to read...
just adding to the fire,
[raig
cmacfarlane@bbnccj
------------------------------
From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Mon Nov 19 18:24:00 1984
Subject: strange charging for certain numbers, continued
To: bbncca!telecom
As of a few years ago, the telco's charging was special-cased for numbers
ending in 9911 or 9951 (I think.) Such numbers were supposed to be reserved
for business offices, which you could traditionally call for free even from
far away. My uncle who owns the Shoreham Telephone Co. (in Vermont) had to
pick out such toll slips by hand when preparing bills, at least until he
bought a computer for billing.
Evidently those numbers are no longer special, because these days you call
collect to talk to a distant business office -- around here the recording
asking you to wait for the next available service rep even says that they'll
accept charges!
John Levine, ima!johnl or Levine@YALE.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 17:54:32 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: misc. topics
To: TELECOM@MC
A few topics:
1) 950 numbers. There isn't SUPPOSED to ever be a charge for dialing
these numbers.
2) 976 numbers. They are NOT "nationwide" access numbers. They are
unique to each NPA (area code) and result in the service charge-backs
discussed in a previous digest when called from within the same
area code.
3) Just as a point of information, overseas calls from the U.S. are
routed from a variety of locations, including White Plains NY,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and a variety of other locations.
For many years, the White Plains location (area code 914) was
the primary gateway to most of the world.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 20:12:03 EST
From: Joe Pistritto <jcp@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #124
On the subject of Emergency Breakthrough, remember there is
another service that will handle a lot of the cases that emergency
breakthrough is used for: Verification. In many cases, (non life and
death, but still critical), all you want to know is whether the person
you are trying to call is actually TALKING to someone, or if the line
is screwed up for some reason, (phone off the hook, etc.). You can
ask for the 'Verification Operator' in my area (301), and the operator
will tell you whether or not there is conversation on the line. Of
course, he/she won't tell you what the content is, but you can then
decide if you want to do a breakin. There is no charge currently
for verification in this area, although I have heard rumors there
might be soon.
On another topic, a couple weeks ago, I posted a question as
to what the bit rates of the available T(1, 2, 3, etc.) trunks were.
Got no response, so I'll ask again. Someone out there must know this...
(I already know T1 = 1.544 Mhz).
-JCP-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 12:47:02 EST
From: Brint <abc@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA
Subject: BBS Liability
OK, now Lauren and I have reached an important point of agreement: that
"hardcopy" bulletin boards and computer BBSs should be treated the same
way. Now, we need to agree on what that way is.
An important problem is "drawing the line." If the law expects bulletin
board owners to police the content of their "boards," and holds them
liable for illegal postings, is it not also consistent to hold the
public utility company liable if illegal postings are made on the wooden
poles that carry its wires? And should the owners of walls be
responsible for libelous and slanderous grafiti(sp?) posted thereon?
Yes, I agree that walls and poles are not erected for the posting of
information. But they are THERE. And such posting is very nearly a
tradition in American society. (No defense intended!)
It seems that holding bulletin board owners responsible for materials
posted on their boards implies that the state is telling such folks how
to operate their boards, e.g., that they must periodically read every
posted item, that they must insist on the identity of the poster, etc.
Do we really want government writing such regulations?
I believe that there are other means to prosecute the real
culprits--those who actually post the items.
Brint
-------------------
Afterthought: If, on the other hand, a bulletin board is, in fact, to
be considered a broadcast medium equivalent to radio, TV, and
journalism, then it is already subject to these restrictions.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Nov 84 09:41 PST
From: jellinek.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
To: Tim Gonsalves <Fat.Tag@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>, telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
I believe that the number after the hyphen is the number of the
recording, and that the 212 alludes to the fact that your call was
routed through the international switching center in White Plains, NY.
Herb
------------------------------
From: decvax!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg@Berkeley
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 14:02:38 est
To: decvax!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #123
Subject: the BBS case continues
From: P. Michael Guba <aplvax!pmg>
First of all I would like to say that Lauren's analogy with a
physical bulletin board at a grocery store or student union is
a very good one. Electronic BBS's are a new medium and they
can reach many more people but they should be required to follow
the same rules.
| From: Douglas Alan <NESSUS%MIT-EECS@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
|> From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
|> Subject: the BBS case continues
| When you buy some material, the seller
| isn't responsible for what you do with the material, so why should the
| provider of a service be responsible for what you do with the service?
Because he has the capability of monitoring how you use that service
without invading your rights to privacy.
If the service being provided can be used as a PUBLIC forum in an
ANONYMOUS manner the provider of the service must be held accountable
to exercise reasonable care in preventing any illegal use of the service.
| By your line of reasoning, phone companies should take responsibility
| for crimes that are planned over telephones, mail comapanies should be
| responsible for packages that contain bombs, hotels should be
| responsible for everything that is discussed in their hotel rooms.
| Phone companies should listen to all conversations. Mail companies
| should open and search all packages. Hotels should bug all their rooms.
Under all of these situations that Doug mentioned, the right of privacy
of the average citizen in using these services takes precedence over
the discovery of the few people that abuse these mediums by using them
to commit crimes. When people post information to a bulletin board,
on the wall or on a computer, they have given up their right to privacy
in transmitting their information. Once the posted message is in the
public forum, it is under scrutiny of the law and a search warrant,
or permission of the author or other privledged recipient of the message,
are not required to enter the message as evidence in a court of law.
None of these conditions apply to the use of the mediums discussed by Doug.
|> The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't
|> understand that technology does not excuse one from conventional
|> legal responsibilities.
| The real problem that some people seem to have is that they can't
| understand that just because freedom can be abused (especially with the
| aid of technology) doesn't mean that it should be taken away.
And some people don't realize that freedoms carry responsibilities.
|> The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing around illicit
|> numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS. If they weren't
|> anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such topics.
| Gee, so are rumors. I guess we should make them illegal too!
Rumors are normally transmitted from one person to another or in small
closed groups and therefore are protected by our rights to have private
conversations. Thats why they are called rumors and not the Washington
Post.
|> For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a
|> BBS that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great
|> financial harm. Who would be responsible?
| If a rumor is started that clearly libels a person and does him great
| financial harm. Who would be responsible?
The person who put the message into the public or who was most responsible
for the financial harm that was created by the rumor. Thats why I don't
repeat rumors that can harm people, and thats why I don't slander
people on BBS's.
| Clearly we should make talking illegal, for without talking there could
| be no rumors.
This one doesn't even deserve a response.
|> Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free
|> to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without
|> being traceable. Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all
|> knowledge of this.
Lauren is correct. If some one is providing a public forum for
ANONYMOUS messages they have accepted SOME responsibility for making
sure that the posted information does not violate laws. And they
should exercise REASONABLE care to insure that the postings are
legal. It is the responsibility of juries in our justice system
to determine what is reasonable care.
| There can
| be no such thing as anonymous slander, because if no one is willing to
| sign his name to it, then it has no authority. If people are willing to
| believe anonymous lies or regard my unsuported beliefs as facts, then it
| is they who are guilty ones.
How does this line of thought apply to anonymously posted telephone
credit card numbers? The person who posted the number is aiding
a criminal action. If the BBS operator does not exercise reasonable
care in removing such messages he is responsible for that message
being on the bulletin board. On the other side of the coin, if his
system also supports transmission of private mail between frequent
users, he is not responsible for filtering these messages because
they are private.
|> The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort
|> of "anonymous" situation.
| Thomas Jefferson knew very well what he was doing when he created the
| bill of rights, and if he were alive today, he'd probably want hold a
| revolution.
Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he could see how some
people were condoning the commitment of crimes, under the guise of
exercising their freedoms. Someone has the right to say anything they
want but the must also pay the penalty if what they say infringes on
someone else rights.
|> Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available
|> materials, and where the originator of the material is not known,
|> the only other responsible party must be the entity that made
|> it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a
|> large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner.
|> If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple
|> or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so
|> quickly.
| This line of reasoning is rediculous. Again, by this reasoning, Thomas
| Jefferson is responsible for all abuses of the First Ammendment.
Don't forget your First Ammendment ends where the next persons
Bill of Rights begins.
| The guilty are the guilty. Even if they are not easy to find. The fact
| that there is an easy-to-find scape-goat doesn't make him guilty of
| anything.
Someone made it hard to find the guilty. And that same person had the
power to remove the illegal message. You call him a scape-goat, and I
say the courts will decide whether or not he has exercised what I have
defined as reasonable care in removing illegal messages from his BBS.
In a previous telecom digest "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
wrote:
| I continue to believe that this is a First Amendment matter. Ask any
| newsperson about restrictions on what they may publish. They will
| immediately tell you about the "public's right to know" and the First
| Amendment. In my opinion, a bboard is much closer to a newspaper than a
| "store and forward network", which is simply a message passing facility
| the modern version of the United States Post Office (which, after all,
| is itself, a store and forward network).
This is true, but don't forget that newspapers, no matter how loosely
the term is used, have been sued for, and lost, libel cases and that the
author of an article, and the editor of the paper are ultimately
responsible for any article published in the paper. The author wrote the
article and the editor provided the means for public distribution of the
material.
A bulletin board operator assumes the same responsibility
to exercise reasonable care that the information being posted is not
libelous or criminal in nature, that an editor would have to assume
if he published an ANONYMOUS article in his paper.
REPEATING: Don't forget your First Ammendment ends where the
next persons Bill of Rights begins.
I love discussions on legal interpretations, done with minimal flaming.
This views presented in this article are mine and have
no connection with my employer.
Just another conservative engineer,
Mike
----
P. Michael Guba
...seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg
...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************