Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings.
Message-ID: <1014@looking.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 13:14:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: looking.1014
Posted: Tue Oct  6 13:14:40 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 00:18:52 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2050@kitty.UUCP> <2071@kitty.UUCP> <1544@homxc.UUCP> <30049@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 27
Xref: utgpu news.admin:976 misc.legal:2222

In article <30049@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
>[I'm going to regret this... ]
>
>Problem one: identification.
>	Prove that a given person posted a given posting. Think that is 
>	simple? I can name a number of ways to tracelessly forge postings.
>	I do not believe it is possible to prove to the requirements of a
>	court of law that ANYTHING happened on USENET, much less than any
>	specific person did any given event.

It's true you can't PROVE a posting came from somebody, and that means that
you could probably never get criminal prosecution over something posted to
usenet.

Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof.  Can
I demonstrate with certainty that <30049@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach?
No.  But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from
him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!",
then it is extremely likely that he posted it.

If there were a forgery, you would have to show the court why you didn't point
it out until you were served with the suit.  The court might believe you and
they might not, but it's up to them.  The principle of reasonable doubt does
not apply in civil litigation.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473