From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Apr 19 09:06:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA24225 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 09:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tok.qiv.com ([204.214.141.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA24214; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 09:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tok.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with UUCP id LAA24590; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 11:06:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost) by acp.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00494; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 11:02:31 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: acp.qiv.com: jdn owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 11:02:31 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jay D. Nelson" To: Glen Foster cc: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG, sysop@mixcom.com, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Liability (was: Binaries in Usenet (was: News...)) In-Reply-To: <199704191447.KAA08481@tbd.gfoster.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Along with news, what about my encrypted mail. Is an ISP a potential federal target if a user's encrypted mail is suspected of "terrorist" communication? What is an ISP's liability if they filter out encrypted mail? BTW, I never felt much need of encryption until the gov't got their panties in a knot over key escrow. -- Jay On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Glen Foster wrote: ->One issue that I haven't seen raised in this overlong discussion are ->the legal consequences of standard netnews administration. -> ->Of course it is illegal to destroy any evidence that a crime has been ->committed, whether or not you know about the crime (it is called ->obstruction of justice). Does this make it OK to expire any groups ->except the groups that are likely to contain "kiddie porn" or other ->illegal material? Only half a ":-)" here! (I guess this would be ->".-,"). -> ->It would be enlightening to see a lawyer's considered opinion about ->the defensibility of standard ISP practices in dealing with ->questionable material. I suspect much would hinge on intent, if you ->think porn is OK then you can expire it, if you think it is illegal or ->potentially illegal then you can't. If someone believes that criminal ->acts are occurring then it is their responsibility to report them to ->the authorities. -> ->Please don't read this as me trying to be alarmist. I doubt that ->there is any real threat unless "the authorities" have some other ->reason to target a particular ISP. However, it is not unknown for ->them to use every weapon at their disposal for the purpose of coercion ->or prosecution. -> ->Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor am I likely to be offerred a TV role ->as one. -> ->Glen Foster -> ->>From: "Gary Palmer" ->>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:04:17 -0400 ->> ->>Lucky we have this thing called `expire' *grin* ->