telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/16/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Nov 84 16:09:26 EST Volume 4 : Issue 120
Today's Topics:
From Usenet net.legal (please, no mail on spelling Tcimpidis)
Thomas Tc*** and the phone phreaks
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #119
Re: BBS's -- who is responsible?
BBS, telephone credit cards, fraud, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 15 Nov 1984 06:06:36-PST
From: waters%viking.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Lester Waters)
To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA
Subject: From Usenet net.legal (please, no mail on spelling Tcimpidis)
From: ROLL::USENET "USENET Newsgroup Distributor" 15-NOV-1984 06:42
To: VIKING::WATERS
Subj: USENET net.legal newsgroup articles
Newsgroups: net.legal
Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhuxv!mhuxt!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison
Subject: Thomas Tc*** and the phone phreaks
Posted: Mon Nov 12 14:57:34 1984
The billboard/phone-phreak case has reached the New York Times
(Monday Nov 12 issue). A long story is very short on facts and
long on concerns about censorship and liability.
I presume the shortage of facts is related to the case being
currently prosecuted. Still, is there a reliable, objective
dicussion available anywhere of what probably happened?
I have two questions:
(1) It would be easier to talk about this case if we knew how
to pronounce the sysops' name. Can anyone who knows for sure
post it? (Thomas Tcimp...)
(2) The crucial case issue in law appears to be: to what extent is
an electronic bulletin board a publisher, and to what extent is it
a carrier? Carriers are generally not responsible for the content
of their messages, and publishers are. I think the global issue
was not addressed properly by the NYT, nor on the net --
If bulletin boards are publishers, then how many other
companies that THINK they are in the carrier business are
actually also publishers?
It is possible that nearly everyone in the store-and-forward
business could be treated as a publisher also. S+F services
INTEND to screen none of the messages they forward, and IN GENERAL
messages they handle are sent from one person to one (or a few others)
person. But there is nothing to prevent a S+F message from being
sent to most of the potential audience, and nothing to prevent
the S+F service from screening before forwarding.
Thomas T. apparently intended to operate as a S+F service, leaving
much data unscreened. If he had required the sender of every message
to provide a specific list of addressees (selected from his user
population), it's hard to see any difference in the possible "crime".
Therefore, in my mind, this case attacks not only bulleting boards,
but every company that intends to store and forward messages among
individuals in different places.
I would appreciate public comment.
By the way, I'll reiterate another point I strongly believe in:
This is not primarily a "free speech" issue. It's a case to decide
if we have a set of laws applicable to regulate this type of commerce.
Entities that are not part of the government, nor monopolies,
have wide discretion to control what they will publish or relay.
We rightfully hold them responsible in many cases to prevent the
publishing of scurrilous, damaging-and-false information that
attacks individuals not easily able to defend themselves
appropriately.
If we choose to have government-run bulletin boards, then the bill
of rights will be a key factor in determining their content.
- Toby Robison
allegra!eosp1!robison
or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
alternate: princeton!eosp1!robison
------------------------------
Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 09:44:49-EST
From: Doug Alan <Nessus%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #119
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
I'm concerned about the general paper company issue. Let's take a
couple of extreme examples, and not necessarily impossible ones at
that:
1) A paper company starts up what amounts to a "houses to hit" list.
Some people use the paper made by the paper company to comunicate
information about local homes and businesses that have been noted
to have "lax" security, and also note the times the buildings are
unattended, what valuables are inside, and recommend possible
places to fence the goods if they are "removed" from those
establishments. The paper company makes sure that it never knows
who writes what on any of its paper, and disclaims responsibility
when robberies in the area increase 100 fold within a month of the
establishment of its "communication service." It also claims "we
never read what anyone writes on our paper--we're only providing
stuff for people to write on."
2) A racial "hate" group establishes a paper company so that people
can write down their plans for destruction and terrorism against
various racial and religious groups, all anonymously of course.
Both property damage and acts of personal, physical violence are
proposed and planned on the paper. The paper company claims that
it has no responsibility because "we never read what people write
on our paper."
Both of these scenarios might be occurring right now, though we
certainly hope they are not. Now the question is, do these paper
companies deserve to be protected? What about paper companies that
attempt to use "ignorance of content" as an excuse to establish and/or
promote illegal activities? In my view, paper companies would be
subject to much the same rules and penalties as a magazine publisher
when it comes to publication of such materials. It is unreasonable
for paper companies to try to absolve themselves of all responsibility
by claiming lack of control of their paper and lack of knowledge
regarding users of their paper. If nothing else, paper companies
could provide carbon sheets with all their paper and could require
that they be sent a copy of anything that is written on their paper.
Oh yes, this would be more costly and more work for the paper company
-- which is probably why most paper companies kick and scream at the
concept. Or they could license people, before allowing them to
purchase paper, which would all be marked with unique identification.
But trying to hide behind the "anonymous" cloak is irresponsible and
likely to promote increasing amounts of abuse by "anonymous" writers.
--Big Brother--
-------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 10:09:41 EST
From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
To: "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: BBS's -- who is responsible?
The real question here is Are bboards and commercial information services
information carriers or are they publications? They don't really fit the
classification of a conventional publication (I doubt anyone in the legal
community knows what an APA is).
-Ron
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 84 11:34 PST
From: Tom Perrine <tom@LOGICON.ARPA>
To: telecom%BBNCCA@Nosc
Cc: Tom Perrine <tom@logicon>
Subject: BBS, telephone credit cards, fraud, etc.
Interesting subject. Its even more interesting if you have been a
victim.
Three months ago, I received a rather large American Express bill; it
came in *three* boxes. Examination of the contents revealed bills for
approximately 1500 phone calls made on my "ExpressPhone TravelNet" (MCI
paid via Amex) account, to the tune of $3000+.
After calling American Express and convincing them that I didn't make
the calls, my wife and I sat down to do a little "traffic analysis."
All of the calls were from places I have never been, like Miami, Kansas
City, New York, etc. Once a call was placed to an area, there was soon
an outgoing call from that area, etc.
The first call was in the day after the previous billing cycle had
closed, from Los Angeles to New York. The next call was 1 hour later,
from New York to Miami, Florida. After that, the calls were really
flying, with literally scads of call from Miami to New York (were drug
deals arranged with my MCI account?) From there, things fanned out at a
nearly exponential rate, to include Kansas City, San Francisco
(probably San Jose/Santa Clara) and many other places I have never been.
On a whim, I tried dialing a few of the numbers. In every case I got a
person, not a modem tone, who denied receiving any calls from the
cities I knew they had received a call from or even knowing what a BBS
was. B.S.**(+infinity)!
In any case, American Express and MCI Investigations in McClean have
all the records. They (AMEX) intimated to me that this will allow them
to recover damages by convincing the people who *received* calls that
they are accessories to the crime if they don't tell them who called *!
("If you don't tell us who did call you, we wil sue *you*...")
I am *VERY* sure that my account number wasn't given out, or seen, as I
am a little paranoid about giving thengs like that out. I *NEVER* give
my number to hotel operators, if I can't dial it myself, I go somewhere
I can, and then I make sure it isn't seen.
I later calculated by "back-of-the-envelope" that several people,
acting in concert could discover the MCI TravelNet access code of any
account, in less than a week, using home computers; the method is left
as an excercise for the weak of ethic.
Tom Perrine, an ex-TravelNet subscriber
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************