Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

[James B. DiGriz]

Tim May wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 05:08 PM, Eric Murray wrote:
> 
> 
>>This was discussed long ago on cypherpunks, in fact the cyphernomicon 
>>says:
>>
>>    8.9.7. Possible legal steps to limit the use of remailers and
>>            anonymous systems
>>           - hold the remailer liable for content, i.e., no common
>>              carrier status
>>           - insert provisions into the various "anti-hacking" laws to
>>              criminalize anonymous posts
>>
>>(all of 8.9 is worth re-reading for this discussion).
>>
>>
> 
> Thanks. I try not to quote my own ancient writings, but it's clear that 
> a lot of the posters of the past couple of years are not familiar with 
> the older writings (which is sort of excusable...) and have not thought 
> deeply about the issues (which is not).
> 
> 
>>Tim, do you really mean to say that you now think that a remailer
>>is a publisher, not a common carrier?  Maybe I lost track in all
>>the devil's advocate indirection...
>>
> 
> I take no position one way or another. But "common carrier" status is 
> not something that is automatically achieved. The telephone companies 
> got it, to prevent phone companies from being shut down or from 
> listening in on conversations. I'm not an expert in the history of 
> "common carrier" legislation. (It may be described in Ithiel de sola 
> Pool's seminal history of the telephone and liberty, though.)
> 
> My point was the claim some are making that government may "license all 
> remailers" seems unlikely.
> 
> I often talk about "re-commenters" (hyphen added to emphasize the 
> "commenter" part). If I get mail, or letters, or e-mail, and then pass 
> it along to my friends or others, WHERE IN THE FIRST does it say I need 
> permission from government?
> 
> Imagine someone sent to prison for the crime of passing along messages 
> he received.
> 
> 
>>I think that being a publisher, while it gives many rights, is not 
>>nearly
>>as good as being a common carrier.  My understanding of "common 
>>carrrier"
>>in this context is that the common carrier is not held responsible
>>at all for the traffic that it carries.  It  can lose its common
>>carrier status by editing-- then it's acting like a publisher, and
>>is responsible for the material that it edits and publishes...
>>
> 
> There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that 
> common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be 
> claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores 
> could be treated as common carriers "so long as they didn't screen the 
> books they sold."
> 
> 
>>(follow the links inthat article to find that teh CDA gives some
>>safe harbor for "provider or user of an interactive computer
>>service" for editing content to get rid of obscene, etc. material.)
>>
> 
> The CDA did indeed give safe harbor...but what the CDA giveth, CDA II or 
> the Children's Protection Act can taketh away.
> 
> 
>>
>>I'm not up on the current state of this.
>>Is it no longer possible to consider a remailer (or an ISP or
>>BBS) a common carrier and thus "publisher" is the best to hope for?
>>Or is it that "publisher", while carrying fewer rights, is much
>>less likely to be held invalid?
>>
> 
> No significant precedents in this area that I have ever heard of.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 
> 

Common carrier status for ISP's is not automatic, under the '96 Telecom 
Act and later additions. You have to file with the FCC and promise to 
remove material anybody complains about, etc. in exchange for 
indemnification from liablility.

I took a look at it and said "Fuck the dumb shit." Choate is right on 
this one.

jbdigriz