Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!tenney From: tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet Message-ID: <1665@well.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 04:23:28 EDT Article-I.D.: well.1665 Posted: Fri Aug 22 04:23:28 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Aug-86 21:00:35 EDT References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <1170@utastro.UUCP> <1022@hoptoad.uucp> <189@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> Reply-To: tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) Organization: Whole Earth Lectronic Link, Sausalito CA Lines: 34 In article <189@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> dudek@harvard.UUCP (Glen Dudek) writes: > >I am not a lawyer, but after wading through the pertinent sections of >S.2575 ... , I am not overly concerned. >... > > "(B) A person or entity providing electronic communication > service to the public may divulge the contents of any such > communication-- >... > "(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 That last paragraph means (in my opinion, also of a non-lawyer) that if you INADVERTENTLY peek at some mail passing through your node of the net AND it appears to pertain to a crime THEN you can feel free to divulge otherwise PRIVATE MAIL! Lets see you do that with US Snail: I'm the mailroom clerk and happen to open your letter and ... ((that is just one of the problems)) -- Glenn Tenney UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney ARPA: well!tenney@LLL-CRG.ARPA Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton) Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIMERS!