Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet
Message-ID: <877@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 03:17:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.877
Posted: Sat Aug 23 03:17:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Aug-86 21:57:52 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <15341@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <15389@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 67
Summary: please pay *ATTENTION*

In article <15389@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
> In article <1032@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> > 
> >	"CHAPTER 121 -- STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND
> >			TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS
> >
> >	"Section 2702. Disclosure of contents
> >		"(a) PROHIBITIONS.-- Except as provided in subsection (b)--
> >			"(1) a person or entity providing an electronic
> >	communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any
> >	person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic
> >	storage by that service;
> >
> 
> 		"(b) EXCEPTIONS.--  A person or entity may divulge the
> 	contents of a communication--
> 			"(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an
> 	addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the
> 	subscriber in the case of remote computing service;
> 
>    This seems to indicate quite clearly that the originator can give consent
> for the contents of his message to be disclosed.  For an individual Usenet
> host, the "originator" and "addressee" are either users on that machine or
> other Usenet hosts (or possibly machines on other nets).  So all you need
> is a release from your mail feeds, stating that they give their "lawful
> consent" for the unintentional disclosure of the contents of their communi-
> cations.

   To begin with, Mr. Gilmore complains about a law which proposes to make it
illegal for the operator of an electronic communication service to knowingly
divulge the contents of any communication while in storage on their machine.
Why?  We all know that Mr. Gilmore has little respect for the privacy of mail
which is routed through his machine (which is why I try to route my mail
around hoptoad whenever possible).  It would seem that Mr. Gilmore wishes to
have the right (without threat of prosecution) to now divulge the contents 
of messages routed through his machine.   While there are aspects of this
bill I don't especially care for, and I have written a letter to my 
congresscritters about it, I think that in this instance, at least, Mr.
Gilmore is off base.

   Mr. DesJardins  then confuses the system adminstrators of mail feed sites
with "originators" and "addressees".  I beg to differ.  As *I* read the text
of the bill, only **I** may authorize the intentional divulging on the 
content of messages I send.  A release from any mail feed site would have no
legal standing in such a question.

   Both gentlemen seem to have missed the fact that the language specifies
"intentional" or "knowingly" divulgin the contents of messages.  If some
flaw of the software or hardware, or an error on the part of a sender
results in the contents of a message being *inadvertantly* (or "unkonwingly")
divulged to someone other than the addressee, there is no violation 
involved.

   This bill is a mess, it attempts to cover too many things with language
that is inadequate, and is clearly designed by persons having little or
no knowledge of the technical realities of electronic communications.  On
this basis alone, we should all write to the appropriate legislators and
bodies, expressing displeasure with the bill.

-- 

Disclaimer:  Disclaimer?  DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!!

tom keller					"She's alive, ALIVE!"
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)