Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res
From: res@sdiris1.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: woops, boy am I dum.
Message-ID: <574@sdiris1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Apr-87 23:24:53 EST
Article-I.D.: sdiris1.574
Posted: Thu Apr 23 23:24:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Apr-87 09:20:31 EST
References: <496@gouldsd.UUCP>
Organization: Control Data Corp.(CIM), San Diego
Lines: 44
Keywords: sources - previous assertions, justified flames, etc.
Xref: utgpu news.admin:311 news.sysadmin:141
Summary: same law...

In article <496@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
> to monitor our activities. For those of you who have been keeping track
> of the cellular radiophone biz, there is a big deal currently about
> protection of person's cellular radio transmissions. Currently it is
> illegal to monitor cellular communications. (I *CAN* get you a ref for
> *THAT*!).
> 
The law protecting Electronic Mail is the same one which "protects"
cellular phones from eavsdropping.. The Electronic Privacy Act.

I don't have a copy at hand, so take the following with caution:

The law does make interception of "E-Mail" criminal... but the question
here is, is UUCP/Usenet passed "mail" E-Mail in the definition of the law?

The Privacy Act requires that the user have a reasonable belief in the
privacy of his data for it to be protected... that is, if you post to
a newsgroup, you know it isn't private... but the key fact in UUCP comms
is the fact documented in the manuals that ALL intersystem traffic is
handled in PUBLIC access files, and can be intercepted/tampered with/faked
by anyone, with fair ease.  If your own system administration tells you in
the agreement you have with them to use the system that your mail is
private, it may be qualified as E-Mail within your own system.. but inter-
system traffic cannot be presumed private.

Note that the closest approach to the Usenet which this has come up on
was the Mog-Ur BBS in Los Angeles, in which the courts ruled that a system
OWNER is totally responsible for everything on his system, and is required
to monitor all traffic for illegalities to protect himself/herself/itself
from legal liability.
(even if that means reading megabytes a day of traffic)

Thus, current case law indicates a requirement for admins to monitor/police
their systems for illegal activities, though it might be wise not to state
publicly what was found, other than a simple "we found irregularities"
justifying removal from access.

"Opinions? Me? Nah, I got no offical opinions... and am NOT a lawyer..)



-- 
Skip Sanders :  sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res
Phone : 619-273-8725 (evenings)