telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/13/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Nov 84 22:34:07 EST Volume 4 : Issue 118
Today's Topics:
BBS's -- who is responsible?
The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #117
The disvetiture
Signalman XII
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 84 12:06:11 PST
From: "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
To: telecom@bbncca.arpa
Subject: BBS's -- who is responsible?
The problem here is the conflict of rights. The First Amendment to the
Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech". This was extended to State (and local) Governments
by the Fourteenth amendment. On the other hand, there are well-known
exceptions. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium (unless there
is a fire); there are both civil and criminal penalties for libel; etc.
In the BBS case, there are a number of questions.
Should individuals be forced to give up part of a Constitutional
Right because the Telephone Company has failed to install appropriate
equipment to validate telephone charge calls? It would be easy to
install equipment at each pay telephone that would require physical
possession of a charge card.
Is there a law stating explicitly that divulging a telephone charge
number is a criminal offense? If so, is the law enforced fairly? I
know of a dormitory at San Diego State University where a Sprint number
was posted -- on a bulletin board -- for a whole semester before Sprint
invalidated it. During that semester, tens of thousands of dollars
worth of long distance calls were placed against that number. No
prosecution took place.
Are other types of Bulletin Boards, such as those outside of super-
markets, those on University campuses such as UCLA, etc. normally
policed? I know full well that the UCLA administration would not
take responsibility for UCLA Bulletin Boards. Moreover since the
administrators are "pillars of society" and have fancy lawyers, the
Telephone Company wouldn't take them on.
The "responsible party" is certainly the poster of the message, not
necessarily the owner of the bulletin board. The fact that the poster
is hard to find doesn't change responsibility.
ted
------------------------------
From: mcb%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch)
Date: Sun Nov 11 14:14:37 1984
Subject: The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case
To: telecom@bbncca
The real question raised by the Mog-ur case (regardless of its
specific outcome) is whether we want, as a matter of public poli-
cy, to hold BBS sysops (and others in similar situations, includ-
ing, for example, commercial services [The Source, CompuServe]
and those who post and redistribute Internet/Usenet digest) CRIM-
INALLY responsible for failing to detect and remove messages pro-
posing illegal activities.
Very rarely do our laws impose standards of affirmative conduct
that result in criminal sanctions if they are not performed
faithfully. These exceptions usually fall into categories where
serious and immdiate harm to persons would result: operators of
dangerous machinery or explosives; manufacturers/sellers of foods
and drugs, and so forth. I don't think anyone has a problem with
holding a drug manufacturer criminally liable for failing to in-
spect a batch of product for dangerous impurities.
Unfortunately, the L.A. prosecutor has misinterpreted the differ-
ence between CRIMINAL and CIVIL standards of conduct. If the
Mog-ur sysop has breached a standard of conduct (and I draw no
factual conclusions, based on third-hand evidence!) the remedy is
for the aggrieved party to sue for damages.
This way, both our society's interest in freedom of communication
and expression AND the aggrieved party's property rights can be
served in a controversial case. And ideally, our legislature
could more specifically define a standard of conduct that assures
that sysops and those in similar positions know what is expected
>from them. Personally, I would rather err on the side of permis-
siveness, but practically ANY reasonable standard of conduct is
better than having a gung-ho prosecutor try to create a whole new
class of information-age crimes.
Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis.ARPA
...ucbvax!lbl-csam!lll-tis!mcb
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 11:54:53-EST
From: Doug Alan <Nessus%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #117
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
It completely offends me that anyone could think that a Sysop should
be held responsible for the messages that appear on his BBoard. It's
like saying that a paper manufacturer should be held responsible for
what people write on their paper. It's like saying that the phone
company should be be resposible for what is said on their phone lines.
It's like saying that grafitti must be cleaned from bathrooms. It's
like saying Thomas Jefferson should be resposible for everything said
by anyone. It's disgusting!
-Doug Alan
-------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 14:44 PST
From: Halsema.ES@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: The disvetiture
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
From "Three Degrees Above Zero":
"The Bell System's financial position became increasingly fragile in the
decade and a half after Alexander Bell's original patents expired in
1893 and 1894. Many independent telephone companies sprang up.... By
1900 there were over 6,000 companies, and by 1907 almost half of the
telephones in the United States were non-Bell. Subscribers were becoming
increasingly dissatisfied with the service. For example, they would
often accidentally reach one of the other companies, and in most cities
they had to pay two or more telephone bills each month...."
Sounds familiar! As my pappy used to say, the more things change, the
more they stay the same.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 16:34:47-PST
From: Nicholas Veizades <VEIZADES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Signalman XII
To: lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
We at Sumex are using these modems for autoanswers and having lots
of problems: Namely,
The lack of DTR control. This problem was fixed by a slight
modification on the Hardware. In other words a reset circuit
was added and connected to pin 20 of the RS232 connector so
that the local host can reset the modem at will.
The modem seems to go to some weird mode at times and it will
not accept any commands or will not answer the phone. This behavior
is best detected by a flashing data LED most of the time but
not always. Powering off and on is the only way to get the modem
back in normal operation. No win in a multi user rotary
system.
The people at Anchorman at first were very defensive and did not acknowledge
the faults of their modem. The service manager at Anchor even went as far
as to suggest to us to buy another brand since we were not pleased with
theirs. Finally recently the Anchor people suggested to return the
modems for a fix which we are in the process of doing.
As originates the Anchorman XII seems to work fine.
Nick.
-------
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************