Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Evidence (was Re: Musing on Constitutionality)
Message-ID: <1343:Oct801:36:3590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 90 01:36:35 GMT
References: <6657@sugar.hackercorp.com> <43541@sequent.UUCP> <6740@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 24

Wtf is wrong with USENET being a common carrier? It looks like it will
eventually become a common carrier, legally. That status makes sense and
ensures the privacy that people want. Mail fraud and wire fraud laws are
quite effective without a central censor.

> So if for example I was notified by a user that some child molesters (Is
> it really true about a child molestation BBS in Portland?  I kind of assumed
> it was an urban legend.) were secretly using comp.protocols.tcpip.eniac
> with a distribution of "local" as a means of conspiring to abuse children,
> I would call the cops.

Sure. And if I were nosy and discovered that the National Enquirer is
really a front for drug dealers, I'd call the cops. The same if I heard
crosstalk on phone lines of people planning a murder. But it's the crime
here that I'd be worried about, not the communications medium per se.

> It's great stuff, and I find the continuing advancement of the capabilities
> of the net to be quite exciting.  I hope we can manage to keep the government 
> from taking it all away from us.  I guess that's what the EFF is all about...

I was under the impression that the EFF was a computerized version of
that other defense organization...

---Dan