Cyphernomicon Top
Cyphernomicon 10.18

Legal Issues:
Systems, Access, and the Law


  10.18.1. Legal issues regarding access to systems
           + Concerns:
             - access by minors to sexually explicit material
             + access from regions where access "should not be
                permitted"
               - export of crypto, for example
               - the Memphis access to California BBS
           + Current approach: taking the promise of the accessor
             - "I will not export this outside the U.S. or Canada."
             - "I am of legal age to access this material."
           + Possible future approaches:
             + Callbacks, to ensure accessor is from region stated
               - easy enough to bypass with cut-outs and remailers
             + "Credentials"
               - a la the US Postal Service's proposed ID card (and
                  others)
               + cryptographically authenticated credentials
                 - Chaum's credentials system (certainly better than
                    many non-privacy-preserving credentials systems)
  10.18.2. "What is a "common carrier" and how does a service become
            one?"
           - (This topic has significance for crypto and remailers, vis
              a vis whether remailers are to be treated as common
              carriers.)
           - Common carriers are what the phone and package delivery
              services are. They are not held liable for the contents of
              phone calls, for the contents of packages (drugs,
              pornography, etc.), or for illegal acts connected with
              their services. One of the deals is that common carriers
              not examine the insides of packages.  Common carriers
              essentially agree to take all traffic that pays the fee and
              not to discriminate based on content. Thus, a phone service
              will not ask what the subject of a call is to be, or listen
              in, to decide whether to make the connection.
           - Some say that to be a common carrier requires a willingness
              to work with law enforcement. That is, Federal Express is
              not responsible for contents of packages, but they have to
              cooperate in reasonable ways with law enforcement to open
              or track suspicious packages. Anybody have a cite for this?
              Is it true?
           - Common carrier status is also cited for bookstores, which
              are not presumed to have read each and every one of the
              books they sell...so if somebody blows their hand off in a
              an experiment, the bookstore is not liable.  (The
              author/publisher may be, but that's a”nt issue.)
           - How does one become a common carrier? Not clear. One view
              is that a service should "behave like" a common carrier and
              then hope and pray that a court sees it that way.
           + Are computer services common carriers? A topic of great
              interest.
             - "According to a discussion I had with Dave Lawrence
                (postmaster at UUNET, as well as moderator of
                news.admin.newgroups), UUNET is registered with the FCC
                as an "Enhanced Service Provider," which, according to
                Dave, amounts to similar protection as "Common Carrier."
                ("Common Carrier" seems to not be appropriate yet, since
                Congress is so behind the tech curve)." [L. Todd Masco,
                1994-08-11]
           - As for remailer networks being treated as common carriers,
              totally unclear at this time. Certainly the fact that
              packets are fully encrypted and unreadabel goes to part of
              the issue about agreeing not to screen.
           + More on the common carrier debate:
             - "Ah, the eternal Common Carrier debate.  The answer is
                the same as the last few times. "Common Carrier" status
                has little to do with exemption from liability.  It has
                most to do with being unable to reject passengers, goods,
                or phone calls......Plenty of non-common carrier entities
                are immune from prosecution for ideas that they
                unkowingly communicate -- bookstores for example (unless
                they are *knowingly* porno bookstores in the wrong
                jurisdiction)....Compuserve was held not liable for an
                (alleged) libel by one of its sysops.  Not because of
                common carrier but because they had no knowledge or
                control....Remailers have no knowledge or control hence
                no scienter (guilty knowledge) hence no liability as a
                matter of law---not a jury question BTW." [Duncan
                Frissell, 1994-08-11]


Next Page: 10.19 Credentials
Previous Page: 10.17 Free Speech is Under Assault

By Tim May, see README

HTML by Jonathan Rochkind