Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: What Are A Sysop's Responsibilities? (Was: Computer Virus Hearings)
Message-ID: <11873@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 7 Jun 89 03:45:28 GMT
References: <154@oldcolo.UUCP> <4246@ficc.uu.net> <513@atlas.tegra.UUCP> <11853@well.UUCP> <50300@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <522@atlas.tegra.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 44

In article <522@atlas.tegra.UUCP> vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) writes:
>"Electronic Mail" on a BBS sitting in some one's living room should
>not be thoght of as private.  Broadcasting your conversation over
>radio should not be considered private.  The ECPA is supposed to make
>this private by making it illegal.  If someone has evil intent do you
>think that an un-enforceable law will prevent them.

I'm afraid I must disagree.  By providing the bulletin board service
and by calling certain correspondence "mail," I think the recognized
assumption is that such mail is private -- that is why there is a
distinction between messages on a message base and E-mail.

Unless a Sysop specifically states that mail on his/her BBS should not
be considered private, I think that a privacy assumption is valid.

You say, "The ECPA is supposed to make this private by making it
illegal."  I think you've got it backwards.  The ECPA is supposed to
make this ILLEGAL because it is PRIVATE.

Furthermore, sure, if a Sysop intends to read all the mail that passes
through his BBS, then the ECPA might not prevent him from doing so,
but  it will private law-enforcement officials with a means of
punishing the privacy violations inherent in his actions.  This is the
point of many laws, is it not?  Deterrence as well as punitive action.

Claiming that mail on a BBS should not be considered private because
the Sysop has access to it and because the hardware is home hardware
rather than an expensive mainframe is sort of like saying that I have
the right to read any privat1e mail that chances its way through my
UUCP feed.  Both claims are faulty -- I may have the ABILITY, but that
does not mean that I have the RIGHT, and if doing so is wrong, then a
law which says so and provides a mean for enforcement and punishment
is a valid law.

Although perhaps it chould use a good rewriting to clarify some of the
more shaky points.... :-)

Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				410 Memorial Drive, No. 223F
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Cambridge, MA 02139-4318
Office: 617-253-4261			      Home: 617-225-8218

P.S. Do you know how hard it is to make a smiley face on an Apple ][+
computer?  Argh!  I want my workstation back!