Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Towards making hosts and their admin free from a criminal offence Message-ID: <431@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-May-86 05:18:17 EDT Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.431 Posted: Tue May 27 05:18:17 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 28-May-86 00:18:44 EDT References: <649@bu-cs.UUCP> <1264@mulga.OZ> <1671@umcp-cs.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: McGill University, Montreal Lines: 59 [Are line-eaters illegal in other countries? :-] It seems to me that much of this discussion is moot. Let us suppose that someone, joe@host.somewhere.uk, posts a message which is legal in the UK but not in the US (whether or not this is possible is irrelevant for the purposes of my discussion). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this bizarre law restricting some clown's idea of `pornography' is passed and the article mentions paintings of nudes. Surely that is enough to get said clown riled. Now, let us suppose whatever police force is established to enforce this law finds the article on machines all over the US. Who is liable? 1) The poster (presumably s/he could be extradited (sp?)). 2) The posting site's SA (extradition again?). 3) The site which transmits it across the pond (owner or SA, same difference). 4) The site which receives it on this side. 5) Any site which handles it on this side. 6) Any site which is caught with it on this side. 7) Anyone who reads it here. I would argue we can ignore case 1 because it is about as close to impossible as you can get to prove that joe@host is indeed the person responsible for the article. Login codes are broken (happens every day, probably), and articles can be faked besides (it wouldn't be too hard for me to make this article appear to come from, let us say, chuq@sun, or mark@cbosgd, or arndt@squirt.dec, or police@bigbrother.uucp, or joe@host.uk for that matter). Cases 2, 3, and 4 have the forgery problem, but in cases 3 and 4 it is easier to make a convicing case (though the forgery could have occurred on *this* side...). Cases 5 and 7 are ridiculous. Case 7 is simply undetectable and case 5 almost so. Case 6 is interesting because it is so easy to erase articles undetectably. I'd love to see someone try to prove in court that such-and-such was present on machine X...how do we know it was really machine X, how do we know you didn't fake the entire transcript, etc. It also suffers from the same problems that occur in trying to prosecute jaywalkers or speeders; you really can't haul into court everyone on the road, or in this case, every machine on USEnet. Admittedly, the last point does not apply in countries with only a few sites. (Pioneers always have problems :-). Still, I tend towards the view that if a country puts extreme restrictions on what can be stored in or transmitted between computers, it is hardly *our* responsibility to limit ourselves so that *they* can enjoy USEnet. They have it hard, but anyone in such a country does. [-: We in North America have nothing to worry about so it's all OK :-] -- der Mouse USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse mcvax!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse ARPAnet: utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse@uw-beaver.arpa "Come with me a few minutes, mortal, and we shall talk."