Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!apollo!ulowell!tegra!vail
From: vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: What Are A Sysop's Responsibilities? (Was: Computer Virus Hearings)
Message-ID: <528@atlas.tegra.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jun 89 19:34:00 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> <11873@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tegra, Inc., Billerica, MA
Lines: 67
In-reply-to: jik@athena.mit.edu's message of 7 Jun 89 03:45:28 GMT

In article <11873@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:

   In article <522@atlas.tegra.UUCP> vail@tegra.UUCP (Me!) 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.

I'm afraid I must disagree with your disagreement.  I would say by
calling the systems a "bulletin board" you assume the opposite.  The
distinction of messages and email has nothing to do with privacy but
with the direction of information, either 1->many or 1->1.

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

I would default the other way.  It is easier and normal.  The posting
is voluntary and the gov't should not try to enforce things that they
can't.  A much better way is for the gov't to provide private email if
that is really what is desired.  They already provide first class mail
and the phone company is a public utility (of course the PTT in Europe
and other parts of the world controls the telephone as well so this is
a more obvious govt control).

   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.

What I am saying is that no matter what you say or feel it *should*
be, it_is_not_private.  You may feel it is wrong and a violation of
privacy and I agree with you.  Trying to legislate privacy where there
is no reasonable expecation of privacy or means of insuring it serves
no purpose, other than to restrict the rights of individuals even
further.  Creating the illusion of privacy just makes it easier to
abuse the people stupid enough to believe it.

   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.

THE POINT OF ANY LAW IS TO RESTRICT FREEDOM.  Any infringement or
restriction of freedom should be only to add a clear and obvious
benefit to society such as safety and rights of individuals.  It is
not clear that this law provides any benefit or safety to society.

I like what another poster said about morals and laws:
		Law:  Minimum standard of behavior.
		Moral: Maximum standard of behavior.

   P.S. Do you know how hard it is to make a smiley face on an Apple ][+
   computer?  Argh!  I want my workstation back!
Does it have something to do with look and feel?

Stattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in.
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu
|Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----