Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!tek From: tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality Message-ID: Date: 27 Aug 90 16:48:46 GMT References: <36823@ut-emx.UUCP> Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY Lines: 69 petrilli@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: > The Constitution was designed to protect speech that we (the >people, and the government) find "unsuitable." Speech that no one >dislikes doesn't need protection. I find it amusing that the SS sees >"electronic publishing" as inferior to conventional paper printing. If >such things as "Phrack" had been published on paper, and distributed as >such, the SS wouldn't have dared to attack; fear of the reaction of the >"press" (newspapers/television) would have stoped them, even if they >ignored it's unconsitutionality. It seems silly to me to base the worth of information on the type of media that is used for distrubtion. However, this may not seems silly to people who have never touched a computer in their life. At the very least, owners of computers who make their systems available to the public should not have to worry about having their systems confiscated if a third party decides to use it for illegal activity. Is the phone company held responsible if that same communication also uses it's equipment? Should your private communications be public to the government just because they are sent over telephone lines in an encoded format instead of voice, without a warrant? Seems to me that settling this in court now will do a lot more to promote connectivity than having this unresolved with sysops turning off their modems. I wonder what some of the big computer access companies feel about this sort of thing. Like Compuserve or Genie. Do they monitor every users mail to make sure nothing illegal is being done on their computers? I think some of the big database companies are required to have software which tracks information requests and flags certain requests. To prevent someone from committing a crime? > I will say that there are a few "hackers" who are destructive >(and receive >all the press), but there are alot that have ethics and subscribe to the >"hacker ideals," one of which is that information should be free... he >who controls information controls the power is their view, therefor, >no-one should control information, it's too precious a resource to be >hoarded like little kids with their marbles. I agree with this, but the way our society operates, people are not rewarded for sharing information, only for hoarding it. Patents and copyrights are supposed to aid in the dissemination of information, but still, this does not make information 'free'. You still have to pay to use it. There are people working on revisions to copyright law to make it more practical in this time of widespread electronic data in hopes to promote electronic publishing and libraries. Although I feel as you do, that information should be free to anyone who cares to read it, I cannot justify stealing the bread out of someone's mouth. A man who spends his entire wealth to do research in the hopes of making a profit from the information later. How could you rob him of his investment? There are also a lot of people out there willing to provide information for free. GNU is an excellent example of this. It won't take a change in government officials or laws or anything like that to alter society. The change will come from individuals who are tired with the way things are and are willing to sacrifice to live their dreams. By their examples will we save our selves. I guess what I'm trying to say by that preaching is, don't steal from others if they are unwilling to give. Reinvent the wheel, but copyleft it this time. Thom -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irkunsel@ecuvm1.bitnet East Carolina University internet:tek@ms.uky.edu Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)