Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!travis!tom From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Missing mission Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 90 11:30:53 GMT References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: news@travis.csd.harris.com Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division Lines: 78 In-reply-to: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU's message of 24 Aug 90 09:06:22 GMT >>>>> Regarding Missing mission; spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) adds: spaf> For instance: publishing a newsletter or sending e-mail may be spaf> something we want to define as protected forms of free speech. But spaf> suppose the material is slanderous, or violates a company's trade spaf> secrets, or spreads a virus, or breeches national defense secrets? spaf> How about cases where someone is just unceasingly rude? There are spaf> social and legal concerns here on both sides, and focusing on only one spaf> side will keep everyone from being supportive of the effort. We have had freedom of the written press for 200 years, but we have also had libel laws. Electronic media should fall in the same category and be subject to the same libel laws as print media. I have not seen (yet) anyone advocating a different position. Likewise, there is no reason a corporation should not have recourse to the same remedies for electronic violation of trade secrets as they currently have for people who carry the information out in brief cases. Defense secrets are already protected by being secret. If a 17 year old cracker can get to them, surely the KGB can as well. In the case of the Pentagon Papers the courts established the precedent that once the secrecy has been violated nothing can keep the information out of the press (unless the press chooses to withold the information itself). spaf> I've been using bulletin boards and the network for a decade. In that spaf> time, I've seen some wonderful things happen. I've also seen an spaf> increasing tide of impolite, inconsiderate, harassing, and even spaf> hurtful traffic. Perhaps the posters have a right to write what they spaf> wish -- but should they have the right to use other people's machines spaf> and networks to spread it? Do they have the right to inject that spaf> material into inappropriate forums for others to stumble across? Do spaf> they have the right to forge their name, and violate accepted spaf> protocols to make their statements that almost no one wants to read? spaf> What and who exactly is it that needs the protection? I think they have a right to try. As a reader, I have a right to ignore them (I can even ignore them with machine assistance using kill files). If I was an an operator of a machine being used as a bulletin board (especially if it was a non-profit one), I would also have a right to deny access to sufficiently disruptive users. The fact is that almost *every* statement that anyone makes on a BBS falls into the category of a "statement that almost no one wants to read". This fact is why electronic media is so important, you can pick out the few topics that interest you and have discussions in great detail on subjects that bore the vast majority of other people. The primary challenge for all forms of electronic media will be to make the job easier for the users to sort out the wheat from the chaff in a media where one person's wheat is another person's chaff. Admittedly, disruptive crackers can make this harder, but it is pretty hard just to ignore the calm considerate and erudite discussions that I just happen to not be interested in. The best solution to disruptive users is to ignore them and not engage in raging flame wars (which is what they usually want to start in the first place). spaf> There is also the issue of criminal use of computers and networks. spaf> Recent situations that have made such headlines in the news may not be spaf> such good examples; likewise in any court there are likely to be some spaf> mistaken or bad cases of other types of crime. Still, there are spaf> people writing viruses, breaking into computers, altering and stealing spaf> code and data, and crashing systems. Don't their victims have rights, spaf> too? Shouldn't we all share some sense of manners and ethics to spaf> prevent such activity? Crimes are crimes, but when the law enforcement establishment knows less than nothing about computers they need education so they can tell the difference between criminals and computer game developers. I have absolutely no sympathy for criminals that use computers or guns, but the legal establishment needs to learn a lot more to deal effectively with the ones that use computers. -- ====================================================================== domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com USMail: Tom Horsley uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach, FL 33444 +==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+ | (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...) | +====================================================================+