Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Congress is now debating the future of Usenet
Message-ID: <1043@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Thu, 28-Aug-86 03:17:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1043
Posted: Thu Aug 28 03:17:03 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 21:31:25 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <15341@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <15406@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 28

In article <15406@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, David desJardins writes:
>                                             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.

This is certainly David's point of view.  I don't think that this is
what the current bill proposes, though.  The bill gives the originator
of a message the right to sue people who disclose it.  Fabrications
about my not really originating a message, it was originated by decvax
when it passed the message to ucbvax, will not fool anybody, even a
judge.

[This is why I first got upset about the bill -- it changes the rules
for our electronic mail system, without our consent.]

If I send an email message through David's site, and he intercepts it
and discloses it, the bill lets me sue him.  If he's interested I'm
sure we can put it to the test...

David, I suggest you call a staffer on the Judiciary Committee and ask
them which interpretation is intended by the authors.  Try Cindy Blackburn
at 202-224-8059.
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
		     May the Source be with you!