Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!husc6!endor!dudek
From: dudek@endor.harvard.edu (Glen Dudek)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet
Message-ID: <189@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20-Aug-86 10:12:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: husc6.189
Posted: Wed Aug 20 10:12:35 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Aug-86 01:04:45 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <1170@utastro.UUCP> <1022@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@husc6.HARVARD.EDU
Reply-To: dudek@harvard.UUCP (Glen Dudek)
Organization: Aiken Comp Lab, Harvard
Lines: 40


I am not a lawyer, but after wading through the pertinent sections of
S.2575 (my thanks to Glenn Tenney and John Gilmore for making this bill
known and available), I am not overly concerned.  It seems to be
primarily concerned with protecting the privacy of electronic messages,
and establishing the guidelines under which such electronic messages
can be divulged or obtained by legal investigation.  This is the
primary section on privacy and disclosure:

	    "(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this
    paragraph, a person or entity providing an electronic communication
    service to the public shall not willfully divulge the contents of any
    communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent
    thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity
    other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or
    an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

	    "(B) A person or entity providing electronic communication
    service to the public may divulge the contents of any such
    communication--

	    "(i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517 of
    this title;

	    "(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any
    addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

	    "(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities
    are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or

	    "(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service
    provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if
    such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.".

These do not seem to be unreasonable restrictions.  So, what is hiding
between the lines of the legal mumbo-jumbo that I am missing?  Please
reference the appropriate sections so I can try to make sense of it again.

	Glen Dudek
	postmaster@harvard.harvard.edu