From: roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Big Brother BBS policies
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 06:16:42 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN

fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller) writes:

> First of all, I don't know how some constable is going to catch this unless
> they themselves have hacked my system.

You have narcs among your users.  They try to entrap other users.  You
don't know or care who your users are, so you don't know this.

> There is recent legislation, which
> I'm sure someone here is familiar with, regarding electronic communication.
> If you provide true private e-mail, then I don't think you can be held
> responsible for its contents.  Not providing true e-mail is part of the
> same Big Brother attitude that all too many sysops have.

I do not believe you are capable of providing TRUE provate E-mail.  No
Big Brother to it.  You simply don't have the means.  You are welcome to
supply _facts_ to counter this argument.  In any case, private E-mail
does nothing to avoid your resident narcs baiting other users into
passing illegal information.

> I don't know the law, but I doubt that you could be held legally
> responsible, whether or not you know the identity of your users.

You are not a common carrier, therefore you are responsible for every
last ASCII byte found on your system.  Period.

> You are
> also making it out to be a much larger problem than it actually is.  You
> are just using an extreme case to justify your nosy policies.

My machine, my policies.  Don't like it?  Don't call.

> >Not support it?  Hell, I don't PERMIT it to occur!  And if you slip
> >something through my screens, I damn sure want to know where to re-aim
> >the cannon.
> 
> Ah, now your true nature is showing.  You are a pig, a rat, and a
> control-freak. You wont find me on your BBS.  Thank god USENET isn't run
> that way.

And you are blatently PROMOTING the illegal usage of MY system, by this
very statement.  Why is it that, if I elect to cover my ass, I'm a
control freak, but if you allow any form of illegal use of your own
system, you are a true libertarian?

> If all you require are a name and phone number, then you are NOT one of the
> people I take issue with.  I consider this a reasonable requirement for
> access to YOUR equipment.

You just called me a "pig, a rat, and a control freak".  Now I'm
reasonable.  Could you be more... consistent?

> The original poster was complaining about sysops
> who require such information as social security numbers.  I don't even
> object if you voice validate.

But you object if I maintain a policy of not obscuring illegal
activities on my equipment.  Could you be more... consistent?

> >The golden age is over, fnord.  There's a real world out there, and it
> >doesn't like us.
> 
> True, but to protect yourself doesn't mean you have to be a rat.  Find out
> exactly what the laws are.

Not even the Feds know what the laws are.  They make them up as they go
along.  Ask Steve Jackson Games.  Ask Craig Niedorf.

You are a fool.
--
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu - OR-  cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu
           "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just amused."
                                  -- from an old T-shirt