1993-03-26 - Re: Anonymity, accountability, and control

Header Data

From: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
To: tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts’o)
Message Hash: b76d6af87d820eb64c28e4f0c18fb6de0de0e5fd28648d3bf15d7fe1f049e1cc
Message ID: <9303262118.AA09185@tramp.cc.utexas.edu>
Reply To: <9303262102.AA04094@SOS>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-26 21:20:12 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 13:20:12 PST

Raw message

From: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 13:20:12 PST
To: tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Subject: Re: Anonymity, accountability, and control
In-Reply-To: <9303262102.AA04094@SOS>
Message-ID: <9303262118.AA09185@tramp.cc.utexas.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

>    I believe that UUNET has applied for and received common carrier
>    status [...]
> 	I'd love to hear more about this --- my understanding was that
> "common carrier" status only had a specific meaning for telephone
> companies, and also meant as a side effect that they had to regulated by
> the FCC.  I was not aware that "common carrier" status had any meaning
> in the computer networking arena, since no regulatory agency would have
> the right to receive applications and grant common carrier status,
> unless a law were specifically passed by Congress or perhaps some action
> resulting from a Federal court decision.

I am fairly certain that the people doing Skynet (Usenet news over
satelite) are common carriers (or at least that is what Len Rose told me, I
could be wrong...)  For an example that predates computer communication by
some time but might be a worthwhile example anyway, take a look at Western
Union's telegraph business.  What is/was thier status regarding the
messages they sent?