Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 20:41:26 -0400 From: Sysadmin <danlaw@rust.net> To: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com> Cc: Blaine Minazzi <bminazzi@denverweb.net>, isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How many customers read news (was Re: News...) Message-ID: <335D5AB6.16D9@rust.net> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970422125716.12008B-100000@harlie.bfd.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric J. Schwertfeger wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Sysadmin wrote: > > > What country is this you live in? In the United States, we have civil > > liberty laws prohibiting such behaviour by law enforcement officials, > > of course I am not aware of the situation where you live, but I don't > > see why Usenet should be governed based on the activities of a police > > state where a distributor is treated as a publisher of information. > > That's right, we live in a country where BBS operators get all of their > eqipment siezed because someone managed to download a file from the BBS, > that while legal in the state the BBS was in, was illegal where it was > downloaded. Totally different situation, guess California isn't part of > the United States. Or it all gets seized as evidence, and returned several > months later, when the DOJ realizes that it just plain blew it. In one > case, the file that caused the whole issue had been uploaded by the > investigating officer less than an hour prior to the bust. But we've got > protection against abuse of power, now don't we. > > Anyone that thinks that the government at any level is going to treat > ISP's any better than BBS operators needs to examine very closely why they > think this way. Depending on how you read it, the Communications > Indecency Act could easily be used against ISP's, even for something as > simple as news. Remember, the law wasn't drafted by people that actually > understood USENET News. > > Not to mention the fact that what he's describing here is only an > expansion of the property seizure laws already in effect in the good old > U.S. of A. Read up on it, or at least watch for the 60 minutes episode on > the topic. People every day get cash seized simply because it was > suspicious that they had that much cash on them. Charges are never filed > against the property owner in 90% of property seizure cases, because of > insufficient evidence. But does that mean the people get the seized > property back? Nope, because the case against the property is not the > same as the case against the person, and the property does not have the > right of due process. > > To all the innocent bystanders in this, I'm sorry for venting like this, > I'm not a conspiracy nut or an activist of any sort, but anyone who isn't > concerned about this hasn't paid attention to how the government pursues > things that it thinks are wrong. One of my biggest gripes with the > Key Escrow "privacy protection" bill was that circumventing due process > only has a penalty if what you do with the keys is illegal. So, as long > as they feel good about the results, there will be no penalty. > > O.K., so we're not in a police state, but this isn't the land of the free > anymore. We've given up freedom for security, and there's a rather famous > quote on that one. Personally I refuse to let my life be run by paranoia, even if I have real enemies. There is one certain sure way to obtain the type of society you claim the United States has become, and that is to loudly announce you to freely surrender your rights, and that you will refuse to exercise them. And encourage others to also fall into the forced lockstep of course! Sign that agreement with the SPA to censor your customers' web pages - never mind that their requirement to modify unwholesome links requires _breaking_ copyright law by republishing other people's copyright protected documents! Maybe kiss the asses of right-wing self-styled christian morality czars and police who mistake them for lawmakers, yep, that'll discourage them, right? Oh, better put a notice on your system allowing you to snoop through everybody's data looking for all that bad stuff, and dump the protections you would otherwise get from the ECPA. After all, the prospect of a few hundred thousand dollars in damage judgments is going to be totally ignored by the local sheriff or police commissioner, ain't it? Sorry, I'll take the possibility of being one of the fraction of a percent of the possible victims of such abuse at law enforcement's hands who actually _do_ get screwed over to the other option of hiding in a burrow. In any case, such hiding probably won't help. The motivation in these cases is not law enforcement, but gathering publicity, votes, and the ability to intimidate, to get people to forget that _they_ are the bosses of the police who work for _them_. If you are a convenient idiot who willingly takes responsibility (in a legal rather than moral sense) for everything in your Usenet archive by selective censorship, all the better victim, who can no longer compare themselves to the backbone provider whose newsservers send the whole shebang. Even the US Supreme Court is uneasy over wholesale civil forfeiture laws, which frankly are _not_ used that much except in the sacred scapegoat drug cases to date... and I can only find encouragement in your using the CDA as an example while it is already on hold and seems to face dim prospects from the Court - which actually does seem to have some understanding of Usenet and Internet concepts, from the questioning. However I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them shows a marked unwillingness to face the reality of that law's unworkability loudly expresses their wish for an alternate universe in a dissent, of course. But to return to the topic - frankly, I consider keeping a traditional Usenet server with all the news that fits (for the last few days), and keeping the so-called "questionable" newsgroups going and thriving, is about the best public service anyone can do in support of civil liberties. Otherwise, the rest will be nibbled to death by ducks, one by one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?335D5AB6.16D9>