Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Computer Bulletin Board System Siezed
Message-ID: <2996@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-May-84 13:55:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2996
Posted: Mon May 21 13:55:10 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 12:30:14 EDT
References: <2995@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 18

Decided to put comments as a followup instead of including them
with the original article posting:

I find this rather odd; the same reasoning would hold AT&T and the BOCs
liable to seizure of their equipment because a drug runner made 
long-distance calls in setting up a delivery.  Why would the equipment
of a publicly-accessible CBBS system be subject to seizure due to
the nature of information posted upon it?

Is this a case where technology has outrun the law, and, though logic
shows the CBBS to be equivalent to a common carrier in this case, the
current law cannot be so interpreted?

Also note that the nature of the offending message is not disclosed.
Since the complainant is a telco, it is probably phone phreak info
of some kind. Anyone have more data on this?

Will