Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet
Message-ID: <15390@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 19:43:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15390
Posted: Fri Aug 22 19:43:13 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Aug-86 23:48:37 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <1170@utastro.UUCP> <1022@hoptoad.uucp> <189@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> <1665@well.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 25

In article <1665@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>>	    "(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.".
>
>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 ...

   As a matter of fact this is *exactly* the provision that does currently
apply to the US Mail -- I think it has been copied verbatim into this new
context.
   But what I find strange is that this disclosure is certainly legal under
existing law -- right now there are essentially no restrictions.  So, while
half of the net is screaming that S 2575 is *too* restrictive, you are
arguing for *more* restrictions.
   Just another sign that there is far from total agreement on the net
about the various provisions of this bill.

   -- David desJardins