@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 From: •••@••.••• (David S. Bennahum) Subject: Re: confusing the term "public" with "broadcast media" ~--<snip>--~ [This is extracted from a private correspondence. David had been asked to explain his categories of cyber usage. -rkm] By seeing cyberspace as a collection of different media, and not a single thing, we can better address the real problems of certain kinds of content on-line without a legislative sledgehammer. In the next 10-20 years everything is going to move onto a world-wide ubiquitous digital network. The heirs of TV, Radio, telephony, Net access -- all will travel through the same technical infrastructure. So it seems rather than legislating over the infrastructure as one entity (e.g. "the Net") we should consider breaking up standards according to the degree the service on the network is "public" or "private." For instance, in 10 years, the heir of say NBC on-line, with super mind-share, seems to have a different set of responsbilities than myself writing you a private e-mail. I'm into this way of looking at things, because it might open new solutions which better balance the needs of society and those of the individual in cyberspace. I'm curious to hear from more people what they think about this idea. best, db -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David S. Bennahum 632 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10012 Voice: 212-674-8107 Fax : 212-505-8520 http://www.reach.com/matrix -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- New York Magazine * Wired * The New York Times The Economist * Harper's Bazaar -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• Subject: CDA and the Fourth Amendment I have been spending some time thinking about the CDA, recently-enacted, parallel state laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. I was struck by the following observations, and I was hoping to find other observations from the subscribers to this list. A great deal of the discussion, on this and other lists, about the Telecommunications Reform Act has focused upon the First Amendment infirmities of that law. Pending litigation is focused on similar First Amendment/censorship issues. It strikes me as though the statute should generate even more constitutional concerns: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . " is threatened. (U.S. Const., amend. IV). I realize that litigation on this issue is impossible now as no civil plaintiff could vicariously raise the rights of a hypothetical criminal defendant. Nevertheless, enforcement of the Exon and Hyde additions to the law appear impossible without bruising this essential right. In short, how can the government possibly initiate an investigation of an electronic mail user without reading the mail? It seems that a warrant must be issued to permit opening and examining private communications. To obtain a warrant, probable cause must be established before a judicial officer. How could an investigator establish probable cause when the only fact in existence is that an individual has sent an e-mail? If that fact alone is sufficient, then local and federal authorities possess a de facto ability to read ALL messages transmitted in this medium. (An extremely scary thought.) I appologize for the lack of full development of these ideas, but I wanted to post this early in order to read other comments. Further, I realize that resolution of these issues will probably take several years and that some individuals will have to suffer prosecution and incarceration before the federal courts have formulated a complete answer. Nevertheless, it is important that we remain cognizant, at this time, of all the threats to our liberty that were signed into law earlier this month. Thanks, Matthew G. Zaleski, III @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 Sender: John Whiting <•••@••.•••> Subject: Monks and Martinets There is a story which came down through my family of a medical missionary in India who showed a Buddhist monk his microscope, with which he proved that it was impossible for him to take a drink of water without destroying life, which was contrary to Buddhist teaching. The monk offered to buy the microscope for such an enormous sum that the doctor could not refuse. He then took it out into the courtyard and smashed it. The Internet is under attack for the same reason: it demonstrates, contrary to political and economic dogma, that it is possible for human beings around the planet to communicate directly with each other without the services of an intermediating hierarchy. As "elitist" as it is, relative to the poverty of most of the world's population, it nevertheless puts in touch with each other the enlightened and conscience-directed dissidents among the establishment who have always been the prime movers of revolution. Those of us who wish to preserve the Internet as a means of free and open communication must understand that it is precisely this feature which makes it unacceptable to those who believe that information, and therefore power, should only travel downward. Authoritarians, whether political or religious, will not be assuaged by appealing to the First Amendment, which has always been high on their Hit List. This is an even more fundamental motivation for central control than the money which is to be made from collecting a fee for every message that passes a tollbooth. There are powerful forces whose intention it is that, in the long run, the flow of information must not merely be taxed, but gated. In the mean time, our hope lies in two quarters: the courts, in which an ageing remnant of jurists keeps alight the tiny flame of constitutional protection; and the Internet itself, in which a guerrilla force of dedicated technicians fights to keep one step ahead of the helicopters and the napalm. John Whiting Diatribal Press London @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 Sender: Robert Cannon <•••@••.•••> Subject: Content Restrictions For Interactive Computer Netwroks Under Hopefully the CDA will never be enforced. However, many have asked what their liability would be if the CDA survives constitutional scrutiny. I have drafted a WWW article entitled "Content Restrictions For Interactive Computer Netwroks Under the Communications Decency Act" addressing this subject. I would be interested in comments on the draft. It can be found at http://www.cais.net/cannon/newslett.html Thanks. Robert Cannon, Esq. Online and Interactive Telecommunications Law Washington, D.C. http://www.cais.net/cannon @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland •••@••.••• | Cyberlib temporarily unavailable •••@••.••• | http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
