Do you think this will force folks into using encryption? If I was a sysop, I sure would have all my users using encryption... :) -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "a brush in hand, a wisp of wind, she sighs lile@art.net | knowing that this will be the great one..." http://www.art.net | -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -> EMA ALERT <- News For and About the Members of the ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ASSOCIATION ============================================================ February 3, 1995 -- Number 18 <----------------------------------------------------------> ***** SPECIAL ALERT ***** - Congress to consider making all system operators liable for messaging content. Bill would force employers to monitor message content. ACTION NEEDED NOW! <----------------------------------------------------------> UNREASONABLE NETWORK POLICING PROPOSED Yesterday, Senator Jim Exon (D-NE) introduced S.314, the Communications Decency Act of 1995, in the United States Senate. In an effort to stamp out digital pornography, it makes all telecommunications providers doing business in the United States (from the telephone companies all the way down to offices that use LANs) liable for the content of anything sent over their networks. To avoid the possibility of tens of thousands of dollars in fines and up to two years in jail, business owners would be forced to police their networks and monitor in advance all messages sent over them. WITHOUT ACTION - COULD BE LAW IN MONTHS This bill is substantially the same as the one he put forward last year. He will offer it as an amendment to the pending telecommunications deregulation legislation in the U.S. Senate, which is expected to be enacted by July. Last year, his amendment was adopted even though many thought it hastily drafted and poorly thought out. Fortunately, the telecommunications deregulation legislation died. This year, a more conservative U.S. Congress may be even more reluctant to challenge a "morality" amendment; and its legislative vehicle, the telecommunications deregulation legislation, stands a much better chance of passage this year. ACTION NEEDED NOW Action by the business community is needed now. Please notify your corporate government affairs office and/or your legal counsel. This measure could be adopted as an amendment to the telecommunications bill IN A MATTER OF WEEKS (or potentially added to any legislation pending on the U.S. Senate floor), if business does not mobilize against it. S.314 will not stop digital pornography, but it could devastate the messaging business. If you are interested in further information or are able to participate in lobbying efforts over the next few weeks, contact Sarah Reardon at EMA (see below). ------------------------------------------------------------ EMA ALERT is published and copyrighted (1995) by the Electronic Messaging Association. Permission to reproduce and/or redistribute with attribution is hereby given to all EMA members. For more information about anything in EMA ALERT, contact EMA via e-mail - use either X.400 (S=info; O=ema; A=mci; C=us) or Internet (info@ema.org) address, facsimile (1-703-524-5558), or telephone (1-703-524-5550). Any EMA staff member can be addressed directly via e-mail by using, for X.400, G=<firstname>; S=<lastname>; O=ema; A=mci; C=us, and, for Internet, <firstinitial><lastname>@ema.org. EMA's postal address is 1655 N. Fort Myer Dr. #850, Arlington, VA 22209 USA. ------ End of Forwarded Message
Do you think this will force folks into using encryption? If I was a sysop, I sure would have all my users using encryption... :)
-lile
Then you would have no users. Users resent being made to do anything they don't want to do. If they decide it is worth it they will do it, otherwise they go elsewhere. Take care.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, root@einstein.ssz.com writes, quoting lile:
Do you think this will force folks into using encryption? If I was a sysop, I sure would have all my users using encryption... :)
Then you would have no users. Users resent being made to do anything they don't want to do. If they decide it is worth it they will do it, otherwise they go elsewhere.
Some will leave. Some (one might argue the ones with any basic intelligence) will stay. Sure, many users resent being herded. But the ones that stick around will be of a higher calibre. Think of it as evolution in action. - -- Roy M. Silvernail, writing from roy@cybrspc.mn.org "Ah, man.. you hit the nails right on the heads there. However, I think you drove them right into your own forehead." -- datsun@wasteland.spam.org (Datsun Q. Wanderer) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLz9u7Rvikii9febJAQFpSwQAta5dfzEET3pmNJYwIGZ2/xH25byGgww7 JB0q/eS/C3WOJQZiygNfqcbkAeY7g5F+1fMHzhKC3CVLLDqlQCSnwFZahEHrjwdO Z4q+flHeRo7dmPOWsUATdjk/S44BA11SwhgTZeMXJx0HvhRoimMjl06WCkqRmXZl vbx5SGes33s= =3pzO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Then you would have no users. Users resent being made to do anything they don't want to do. If they decide it is worth it they will do it, otherwise they go elsewhere.
Some will leave. Some (one might argue the ones with any basic intelligence) will stay. Sure, many users resent being herded. But the ones that stick around will be of a higher calibre.
Think of it as evolution in action.
I see it as going broke in action...the majority of your users will leave. Then exactly how do you pay the bills? This singlemindedness is unworkable in the real world. One of the whole ideas that I am concerned with regarding crypto is to have people STOP telling me what to do. Why would I want to become what I hate? Take care.
Do you think this will force folks into using encryption? If I was a sysop, I sure would have all my users using encryption... :)
Which bill do you mean (aside from the one in the whitehouse)? Why force users to do anything. There are other measures, such as running the system on a secure file/device/drive system. Well, that would only help prevent anyone who yeggs your physical system from looking at it-- could even put you in more legal doo-doo that if the users encrypted it. Getting users to encrypt their mail is pointless as a defense against this bill, since the authorities' usual way of 'busting' systems is to call in, become just another user and download (or get a minor to download) 'evil' files or messages. Rob
participants (4)
-
Lile Elam -
Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl -
root -
roy@cybrspc.mn.org