Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!magore
From: magore@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Foothead, Foothead, on the net/Who's the biggest liar yet?
Message-ID: <3333@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-May-87 15:57:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3333
Posted: Fri May  1 15:57:46 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 2-May-87 13:54:58 EDT
References: <1128@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> <1065@epimass.UUCP>
Reply-To: magore@watdcsu.UUCP (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 53
Xref: utgpu news.misc:328 news.sysadmin:166

In article <1221@m-net.UUCP> glr@m-net.UUCP (Glen L. Roberts) writes:
[munch...]

>New section [18 usc] 2701 Unlawful access to stored communications
>
>    Subsection (a) of this new section creates a criminal offense for
>either intentionally access, without authorization, a facility through
>which an electronic communication service is provided, or for intentionally
>exceeding the authorization for accessing that facility. Subesection 2701,
>also provides that the offender must obtain, alter, or prevent authorized
>access to a wire or electronic communiction while it is in electronic
>storage in such an electronic storage system in order to commit a violation
	
	Hmmm, This raises a rather subtile [ or disturbing ] question.

An aside and a general question to everyone: I wonder, in which cases does 
a user have the right to _prevent_ 'authorized' access? Isn't it also an 
issue if whether such right to privacy were ever in fact given in the 
mit-eddie case that started this discussion ?

	[ This could be an interesting loop hole  ? ]

				Comments ???

[munch...]
>	A distinction is drawn between offenses committed for
>purposes of commericial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or
>for private commericial gain and all other types of violation. If the
>offense is committed for private or commericial gain or for malicious
>destruction the subsection provides A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $250,000 OR
>IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BOTH, for a first offender....

>Glen L. Roberts, Box 8275-UN, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107

I would, like to change the topic and ask a few new questions:

	If someone made, say a box to defraud the phone company 
by altering records and or fake signals, and the phone company used their 
'priviledges' to track down said person, then which of the following could 
be said to be violating the law:

	1) The phone company ?
	2) The person obtaining unauthorised access and faking the records ?
	3) Neither ?
	4) Both of them ?
	5) None of the above?  [ explain ]

Best Regards,


# Mike Gore 
# Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home )
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.