Summary from the moderator: Besides with the many threads that people are actively pursuing on this list, I'd like to return for another look at a couple ideas that have passed by without much attention. (Other people are welcome to do the same thing.) Perhaps this message will prompt some more discussion. If you want to go back to earlier postings that you've deleted, look at our archives (which you can find on our Web page as http://cpsr.org:80/cpsr/lists/listserv_archives/cyber-rights/ or ftp to cpsr.org and go to /cpsr/lists/listserv_archives/cyber-rights/). If people on this list like this kind of direction-setting, I'll try to do it regularly. Overly zealous raids On Sept. 3 Steve Eppley pointed out that, when the police raided the computers of anti-Scientologists, they didn't have to confiscate the systems. To prove copyright infringement, all they had to do was take a backup. (Actually, this may be too time-consuming to do on-site, but at least they could try to return the systems as soon as possible). Confiscating the systems looks unnecessarily punitive--it dispenses with the messy details of defense attorneys and juries to effect immediate punishment. There are many precedents for confiscating computer systems, such as the famous Steve Jackson Games case that led to the foundation of the EFF, and the many BBSes that have been raided in the U.S., Canada, and Italy on various accusations. I am also reminded of the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws, which are explicitly designed to prevent the accused from hiring a good defense team to represent them in court. Is confiscation necessary? If not, is there some way we can intervene to change the trend? Perhaps we can help draft some guidelines for what prosecutors and police should do when someone is suspected of a computer-related crime. Netiquette Everybody thinks there is some framework for behavior on electronic networks, but views differ widely as to what that framework should be. Many women are intimidate and repelled because debate on many mailing lists and newsgroups is so confrontational, and because they encounter sexual come-ons and other harrassment. This state of affairs prevents important viewpoints from being heard. I bring this issue up now because one member of our list flamed another in a private email that was full of obscene and insulting statements. The sender claims that the rules for private communications are different than for public ones. The recipient does not claim to be intimidated or emotionally hurt, but many other people in the same situation would be. There are precedents for making private statements an institutional matter. A private comment that someone considers to be sexual harrassment can be grounds for a lawsuit. In cyberspace, a woman who receives harrassing email can contact the institution or service provider where the sender has his account, and cause the sender to be thrown off. I'm not suggesting anything along these lines for the present case, which is over and done with. I'd just like to see discussion of what the residents of cyberspace can expect, and how to deal with the eternal conflict between the right of self-expression and the right to a safe environment. Political participation for whom? On Sept. 5 Connie Page asked how electronic democracy would be brought to people who can't afford computers and Internet access. This puts us squarely in the middle of an issue we haven't discussed for a long while--the desirability and feasibility of univeral access. It's one of the issues on which members of this list are most divided. At the usual risk of offending people, I'll try to summarize the positions. Many believe that bringing the NII to every person is an important goal, so important that public policy and expenditures should be focused on it. In case you find this position extreme, let me remind you that the sponsor of this list, Computer Professionals of Social Responsibility, has often promoted the goal. Of course, those who support it have to explain how it can be offered to all the places in the world where drinkable water and adequate nutrition are still major issues. Other people think that universal access is a pipe dream which we should have nothing to do with. These people need to answer Connie's questions. If electronic networking is a privilege, can electronic democracy be anything more than a way for the privileged part of the population to keep their privileges? Poised at an interesting point between these extremes are those who believe that there is nothing to debate, because eventually technological progress and natural market forces will bring universal access to almost everybody, at least in the developed countries. These people have to offer technical details to back up their assertion. So no matter where you stand, there's a challenge for you in this message. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by -- Andrew Oram -- •••@••.••• -- Cambridge, Mass., USA Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) World Wide Web: http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/cyber-rights.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~hwh6k/public/cyber-rights.html FTP: ftp://jasper.ora.com/pub/andyo/cyber-rights You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
