Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!caip!meccts!mecc!sewilco From: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet Message-ID: <561@mecc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Aug-86 17:59:09 EDT Article-I.D.: mecc.561 Posted: Mon Aug 25 17:59:09 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Aug-86 02:54:06 EDT References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <15341@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St Paul, MN Lines: 66 In article <15406@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >In article <877@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: >> 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. >... >examining the message, noting that the addressee is "bar!(random stuff)," >and forwarding the message to machine bar. I see no moral or legal reason >why any Usenet site should have any responsibility whatsoever to the >individual who happened to originate the text of a particular message at >a site with which they have no interaction whatsoever, under either existing >or proposed law. A site's only responsibility is and should be to the sites >to which it sends and from which it receives. That's the way the June 19 (16) 1986 version seems: the bill assumes there is ONE SENDER, ONE RECEIVER, and INTERMEDIARIES. I didn't see definitions of sender/receiver/intermediary, but I imagine they're in the original sections of the code. In the case of UUCP MAIL, there may be many intermediaries. Each site only "knows" its neighbors (let's deal with anonymous uucp/ftp in a minute), so each site doesn't know nor care who the message sender/receivers are. Now what if a site has anonymous logins or daemons which can send/receive mail? (Public 'phone booth'?) It seems the sites being used by the sender/receivers don't need to confirm identity (anonymous access): "(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter-- ... "(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service; or ..." (page 4 of my listing.. Section 211(2) of title 18, USC) The above allows each site to keep records, but does not require it. In the case of USENET news articles, Section 211(2) of title 18, USC, is amended to allow "(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; ..." The above allows whatever kind of USENET rebroadcasting is needed. USENET news are intended for access by anyone with the right kind of equipment (and good attempts at widening that base are obvious in the source). The above seems to allow any USENET site to send USENET news to anyone else. So what's the fuss? What new things is this law requiring of USENET and UUCP MAIL sites? It seems uucp can continue to lose mail. On the other hand, if any cracker reads or messes up a site's mail the law creates (section 2701) Federal penalties! -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn Ed Comp Corp {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N 93 08 W (612)481-3507 {{caip!meccts},ihnp4,philabs}!mecc!sewilco Laws are society's common sense, recorded for the stupid. The alert question everything anyway.