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 ******************************