From: kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield)
Subject: Verifying the Poster
X-Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions. This should not be necessary...
Organization: Sterling Software
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:44:12 GMT
X-Md4-Signature: 01344ec6079ba9f8deb6f1d80cc7328c

There have been some very interesting discussions concerning copyrights and 
"what is USENET".  It seems that many people are in agreement on a good many 
things but seem reluctant to admit it... :-)  The real problem though, has 
not been addressed and seems to have been totally missed.  

Many think that USENET is so different from any other method of communication
that has proceeded it.  Because of that difference, the law is not prepared 
to deal with it and its "inevitable" copyright problems.  I disagree.  I feel 
that the law can be applied in the same manner to netnews as it has been with 
other forms of communications.  Fair use governs most of the distribution and 
archiving features of the net today.   For use outside distribution and 
archiving,  copyright violations will be addressed as they are in normal 
copyright infringements, "Who did what to whom and how much was the injured 
party actually injured ?"

If a magazine takes an article without permission and prints it, its pretty 
clear who did what.  If a software house takes sources from the net containing 
the standard source code copyright headers as seen in comp.sources.* and sells
the sources to the public as their own, without the headers, its pretty clear
who did what.  If someone slanders/libels someone on the net via a posting, 
things get real murky real quick. (There are other more sinister crimes 
possible but I'll leave that to the imagination.)  The actual problem as I 
see it is "to whom/from whom".  *How* does one *prove* someone posted an 
article ? *How* does one *prove* the article was not modified enroute ?  If
people are going to attempt lawsuits based on electronic postings you have
better be able to prove that you were the poster that was libeled/etc...

Currently it is too easy to put reasonable doubt into the mind(s) of the 
judicial authority as to whom the guilty, and even the injured party is.  Most 
experienced USENET admins with Internet access can post a forgery today with 
minor effort.  Its possible for an individual accused of libel, or some other 
crime associated with an article they posted, to base their defense on the 
premise that they didn't post the offending article.  Or they may claim that 
the article they posted was modified by others citing the massive access that 
the world had to that specific incriminating article.   By the time the trial
date arrives, 99.9% of the copies in question would have expired...

What is needed is *not* a Copyright: header (that would be as effective as the
current Distribution: header).  The articles are already copyrighted unless its
specifically relinquished...  What is needed is a Digital Signature capability 
like what is being developed for Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM).   If it could be 
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt *who* the initial poster of every article was 
and whether the article had or hadn't been modified, then its possible for the
courts to deal with the violations with some degree of certainty.  Matt Bishop 
presented a paper on a model for this at the last Dallas USENIX (I think). 
Those who are interested should consider it suggested reading.  The "ideas" 
are there to make the net capable of being dealt with in a judicious manner 
by our judicial systems. 

I am not saying that we need to have the news software verify every inbound 
article.  What I am suggesting is a method of verifying the poster and content 
in the event it was needed.

If we are looking to assure the net continues to be the valuable resource it
has become, we must look towards fixing what is truly broken.  Copyrights exist
today on the net. The net is *not* public domain.  Placing silly Copyright: 
headers will only assure that large numbers of paranoid sites will drop 
articles so marked on the floor.  This is something no one wants.

			-Kent+
---
Kent Landfield                   INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD           UUCP:     uunet!sparky!kent
Phone:    (402) 291-8300         FAX:      (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:656 news.admin:7077 comp.org.eff.talk:5407 misc.legal.computing:1954