Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom From: telecom@ucbvax.ARPA Newsgroups: fa.telecom Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #118 Message-ID: <3234@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 23:11:32 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.3234 Posted: Mon Nov 12 23:11:32 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Nov-84 03:37:40 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 183 From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) 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" 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 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 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 ******************************