From: jeh@taronga.com (James Casey Henderson)
Subject: Problem with Laws in Cyberspace
Reply-To: jeh@taronga.com (James Casey Henderson)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:27:39 GMT


I've been reading many of the files found at ftp.eff.org, and have a
point which came up.  I'll be brief (since it's late in the a.m.):
 
Try ing to obtain the same exact level of freedom-of-speech and privacy
in cyberspace as you retain in the physical world is a difficult task.
Just as our founding foathers (of America) never anticipated the evolution
of computer technology, the inventors of currently running computers did
not anticipate the creation of a world-wide distributed computer "society"
also called "cyberspace."
If they had anticipated this society, then they would have planned to
mimic (as accurate as possible) the physical world's system and laws.
For example, the e-mail privacy situation would not have been so difficult
if the e-mail policy which has evolved would have been exactly like the
postal-system's policy; thus, nobody (not even system operators) except
the sender(s) and recipient(s) of the e-mail would be permitted to access
(view/read) it.
 
What I'm basically trying to say is, if we are to have the same rights and
responsibilities in "cyberspace" as we do in the real, physical world,
then "cyberspace" (distributed computer systems and their implementations
-- both hardware/firmware and software -- and their policies, laws, and
rights and responsibilities of its users) must be metamorphosized into
something that represents the real, physical world (through a different
implementation, such as a new UNIX Operating System which keeps ALL e-mail
private from EVEN the SysOps!  Or through giving to employees, or 
students, or users of the computer system, a physical partition of the
system's disk(s) and allowing them to password-protect it from EVERYONE
(yes, even the SysOps) except the user's-self of course).  These types
of implementation are what are needed to move cyberspace closer to
reality.  But, of course, questions about details of implementation arise,
such as:  "Do we allow the SysOp to have a 'Master Key' to all partitions?
and does the SysOp need an actual (physical) court-order to search a
users' e-mail?"
 
The examples are just off the top of my head, but my MAIN point again is
that the arguements and court cases over laws, rights, and
responsibilities of users/people in cyberspace are all happening because
of the lack of the "electronics" in our Constitution!  So, as things
are created, exist, change, evolve, and die, do we change the laws to
compensate for these new environments (or "frontiers"), or do we change
the environments to compensate for the laws?  That is the question.
 
So, if the proposed idea for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which
makes all of the Constitution applicable to the electronic
community/environment/society/frontier ever sees the light of reality,
our SOFTWARE and HARDWARE implementations of this electronic
community/environment/society/frontier (I may as well just say
"cyberspace," sheesh :) ) must undergo some EXTREME CHANGES!!!  But
sometimes the government (including Secret Service) isn't too hot on
change...
 
- J. Henderson