Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk From: rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Forgeries (legal aspects thereof) Message-ID: <4067@j.cc.purdue.edu> Date: Mon, 27-Apr-87 21:16:22 EDT Article-I.D.: j.4067 Posted: Mon Apr 27 21:16:22 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Apr-87 04:12:08 EDT References: <9405@decwrl.DEC.COM> <655@desint.UUCP> Reply-To: rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Wombat) Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Lines: 27 In article <655@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Since several people have made accusations of illegal behavior on the >part of the system administrator who pulled Foothead's account, though, >I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. >So is slander. The problem is that there is no legalistic approach to this. Forgery (of certain items) is a crime; I sincerely doubt that Usenet articles number among those items, even by the broadest definitions. Slander is difficult to prove due to the numerous defenses possible. However, an even simpler defense exists: the accused can claim that he or she was not the one using the account at the time the alleged offense took place. Unless a witness observed the accused actually committing the offense, then only circumstantial evidence exists---and given the ease with which that evidence may be created and destroyed by anyone with the requisite knowledge, it is very unlikely that a conviction would result. [I am not a lawyer.] Given the current status of the software (news, notes, uucp) and the state of the network at large, I would say that any and all accusations of this nature would be difficult, if not impossible, to conclusively prove. Perhaps it would be better to avoid the legal quagmire and rely on the judgement of the site administrators involved--though that too has its drawbacks. -- Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk PUCC News Administrator