Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb
From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Towards making hosts and their admin free from a criminal offence
Message-ID: <482@ccird1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jun-86 16:40:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccird1.482
Posted: Mon Jun 16 16:40:13 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jun-86 03:45:38 EDT
References: <611@bu-cs.UUCP> <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.news:5003 net.politics:16846 net.legal:3606
Summary: Publishing, mailing.

In article <1188@bunker.UUCP> ricker@bunker.UUCP (ricker) writes:
>In article <597@chalmers.UUCP> jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) writes:
>>In article <880@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP writes:
>>>
>>>As a practical matter, it cannot be illegal in some other country for me to
>>>sit here in Somerville, Massachusetts, USA and say something distasteful to
>>>a foreign lawmaker.  
>>
>>If you say it on the net you are in fact publishing your statement in every
>>country that the net is distributed to.
>
>The poster is not directly publishing his or her article. The poster is
>submitting it to the net to be published.

This is only true on a "mod" newsgroup where mail is sent to the
moderator.  In a "net" newsgroup, publication is accomplished as
soon as pnews puts the article in a directory which is accessable
to more than one user (/usr/spool/news...).

On the other hand, since news is distributed by common carrier,
it isn't really "published", any more than a "gossip net" of
voice connections would constitute publication.  The law is not
real clear on what a common carrier network really is.

If the same information is distributed by unencrypted broadcast
media, THEN it would be publication.

>>Also, you are the only one who can be held responsible. To hold a host
>>responsible would be as absurd as to hold US Mail responsible if you sent
>>your statement by ordinary mail.

Of course, the country with a grevance against you would have to prove
that you, rather than someone using your login, actually posted the
article. Possible, but not easy.
>
>The comparison of USENET and U.S. Mail is not correct in this context. USENET
>is more like publishing or other broadcast media. The national gateway only 
>receives one copy of a posted article. That gateway then assumes the
>responsibility of broadcasting copies of the article. It may be that
>international law holds the originator responsible for sending illegal materials
>(I don't know I'm not a lawyer), but I would think any law would have to hold
>the local receiver/diseminator responsible as well.

Telephones have been used for illegal purposes for years, not once
has AT&T been held criminally liable.  In fact, the courts have
ruled that warrants are required even though AT&T may give permission
for a phone tap without one, since it is the privacy of the originator,
not the common carrier that is being invaded.

Internationally, some common carriers may be "tapped" by the government
without permission.  In those cases, the government might actually
request that a host delete an improper message.  Of course, finding
that message in the 1MB/day might not be so easy :-).