[fa.telecom] TELECOM Digest V4 #123

telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/19/84)

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Nov 84 23:10:41 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
                      Emergancy Breakthroughs..
                            several topics
                      what are the alternatives?
                        TELECOM Digest V4 #121
                        the BBS case continues
                             Uniden EX1040
                                 BBSs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 1984 21:05-PST
Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs..
From: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
To: Telecom@BBNCCA

Hello,
I have one question Reguarding the
Emergency Breakthroughs.
The other day, I did an emergency
breakthrough from A 914 operator,  to 
area code 703-491-xxxx. The operator
called the 703-491 inward operator
and said:
"Emergency Interrupt on 703-491-xxxx"
To which the 703 inward responded:
"Could i have the name of the party?"
I said,"Mark Hamill"
The inward said:
"Could I please have the number you are
 calling FROM Mr. Hamill?"
I said :"914-946-9563"
Then the inward asked for the reason
for the interrupt. At this point the
914 operator asked if all of this was
necessary. The inward said it was for
the records only.
I said:"I must speak to the other
party"
The inward then said:
"I am sorry Mr. Hamill, that is not a
 valid reason for an interrupt"
and then hung up.
My operator did not know what was going
on and asked me to try the call again
later.

My question is:"Shouldent the Phone
Co. have to put through the interrupt
as long as I am going to pay for it?
And also, why would they want my name
and phone #?

thanks ,
Mark Hamill
MHamill@SRI-CSL

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 23:31:18 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: several topics
To: TELECOM@MC

Gee, several topics.  Let's get the BBS one out of the way first.
I haven't evaded the issue of physical bulletin boards, I just
was searching around trying to find some old newspapers that I
hoped I still had that described some interesting situations along
these lines.  Unfortunately, it appears that those old papers got thrown
out, but I remember the material quite well.

The issue of physical bulletin boards (as well as BBS's) would
seem to most directly involve the continued presence of or 
frequent postings of "illegal" messages.  While I don't follow
the supermarket bulletin board scene too closely, I do recall
at least two instances at universities when there were investigations
into what were considered to be "illegal" postings on the public
("unrestricted") boards there.  In one case, I remember that the
issue involved someone advertising to buy stolen goods, and in another
case it involved drugs.  In both cases the messages were pulled and
quickly reappeared, in one case apparently resulting in the posting
of strict "rules" for use of the boards and frequently checking of
the boards for adherence.  The fear indeed was that the school might
be sued if someone was harmed or otherwise victimized thanks to the
material on those boards.  There's still a chance that I have that
old newspaper around--I'll make another attempt at finding it.

I don't think that anyone would try prosecute a grocery store owner
if an occasional "bad" message showed up on his board.  But what
if someone posted a message that was direct libel, or recommended
illegal acts or some of the other topics we've discussed already?
And what if the owner left such messages up for long periods of time and/or
allowed such messages to be frequently posted? 

The bottom line is that it is considered either illegal or 
subject to civil liability (depending on circumstances) to publicly
post certain sorts of information when that information constitutes
libel or aids/abets in crime.  I know of no exceptions that
say, "It's OK to allow the display of such information if you don't
know who posted it."

If a pattern of abuse were not apparent, one would hope that
BBS's (and physical bulletin board) owners would simply be asked
to remove the messages, and that legal/civil action would not be taken.
In cases of obvious patterns of abuse (for example, someone who
insisted on allowing the posting of stolen credit card numbers on
their board and left them up for long periods) more serious
action would seem suitable.

I strongly believe that there is NO DIFFERENCE between physical
bulletin boards and BBS's in this regard.  We're hearing
more about BBS's because they reach so many people and are
very, very simple to use anonymously, but similar situations
could occur with any "public display" facilities.

-----

To the person asking about the 976 charge-back numbers...  They have
been present here in L.A. for quite some time.  The information
service provider rents a bunch of phone lines (I think around 25 is the 
minimum), specifies the maximum length of the call (3 minutes the
absolute max, I believe) and the amount they want to charge for the
call up to $2 or possibly $3.  They also provide the recordings
or computer equipment (touch-tone/voice output, etc.) for the lines.
For each call that comes in, telco charges the caller any ZUM/toll
charges plus the designated "call cost," keeps a chunk, and sends
a certain percentage of the "call cost" back to the provider.

The most popular of these services to date have been the "Eros" type
numbers, by the way, though there are people running stock market
query/response numbers and other information services that are
also apparently doing QUITE well.  In fact, I may be peripherally
involved with a local 976 info service (writing and doing recordings
for a general information service--not sexually explicit!) quite soon,
in which case I'll presumably find out even more about how these 976
services operate.

Two interesting points:  

1) They are local to each area code.  Here in L.A. where we now have
   two codes, the 213 and 818 systems are considered entirely separate.

2) I'm told that these numbers only collect the "call cost" when called
   from numbers inside the local area code.  For calls outside the
   local code, they supposedly only charge as "regular" calls.  That's
   what my 976 source says, anyway, for whatever it's worth, though one
   would think that there would be special arrangements for close
   knitted codes like 213/818.  Also, it appears that there would
   be a problem with any calls going through alternate carriers
   on a local basis, but that situation is quite cloudy.  At least
   this is the information that telco is apparently giving prospective
   976 service operators--they are warning them that only calls
   inside the local area code will generate them revenue.

-----

Telco recordings that include numbers at the end normally are indicating
the area code and a switch location code for the recording in 
question.  If you hear a recording ending with "212-172" you are most
likely listening to a recording somewhere in New York City.  By and large,
these numbers are being phased out in the toll network, partly because
of complexities being introduced by new CCIS-based call routing systems.

--Lauren--



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 02:38:21 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: what are the alternatives?
To: TELECOM@MC

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear useful alternative suggestions
from those who feel that BBS operators should be free of any
responsibility for all messages on their systems.  Are we to assume
that you feel that any and all information should be OK to have
on these systems?  How about *your* credit card numbers?  Your medical
history?  The status of your bank account?  When you come and go from 
your house?  Degrading or obscene messages regarding yourself or your
relatives from people who dislike you?  How about discussions of your
sexual preferences, problems, and kinks?  If you agree that there
are SOME TOPICS not suitable for public discussion, and you insist
that people should be able to anonymously post messages to these systems,
it might be interesting to hear who should be responsible for the damage 
that might be inflicted on individuals through the public display of
such info.

--Lauren--



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 11:58 EST
From: Douglas Alan <NESSUS%MIT-EECS@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #121
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA


>	From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
>	Subject: the BBS case continues

>	It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom the difference
>	between providing of materials and providing of a "service," 
>	particularly the person who recently showed that he couldn't
>	understand the difference between selling paper and running
>	a message handling service!

It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom that a service is a
type of material.  So what if you can't a touch a service like you can
touch a rock?  You can buy services, sell services, give away services
just like any other material.  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?

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.

>	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.

>	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!

>	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?

Clearly we should make talking illegal, for without talking there could
be no rumors.

>	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.

If I were to say, "I believe that Ronald Reagan had sex with a German
shepard," I would not be guilty of anything, no matter how damaging this
was to Reagan.  I have the right to believe in anything I want to, and I
have the right to voice my opinions.  On the other hand, if I were to
say, "Ronald Reagan had sex with a German shepard, and I can prove it,"
I would be guilty of slander, unless I did indeed have proof.  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.

>	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.

>	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.

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.

			Not afraid to defend the First Amendment,
			Doug Alan


------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 17 Nov 84 22:58 MST
From:  "Kevin P. Fleming" <KFleming@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject:  Uniden EX1040
To:  TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA

Anyone out there in NetLand have any stories good or bad, about Uniden
extension phones?  I am thinking of buying an EX1040 two-line with
memories and conference calling and all of that good stuff.  Please
reply via private mail, or to the net if you must.

                    -Kevin

KFleming%pco@CISL

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 15:53:23 est
From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin)
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: BBSs

Just saw an interesting variant in the paper...  It seems that a neo-Nazi
group in this country is using an American-based BBS to spread the "message"
in Canada.  Importation of printed versions of that material is against
Candian law, but they haven't figured out how to handle this one.

		--Steve Bellovin
		ulysses!smb@Berkeley
		smb.ulysses.btl@csnet-relay.arpa

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************