From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 11:11:55 PDT
To: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)
In-Reply-To: <9309301559.AA23757@netcom4.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199309301808.AA10882@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
Doug Merritt writes:

> I haven't kept up on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that
> BBS's had a choice as to whether to operate as Common Carriers or not,
> as long as they were strictly consistent. If they want to be categorized
> as Common Carriers then they have to have strict policies of hands-off
> privacy, are not liable for the content of messages on their board,
> and the ECPA applies. But if they do not guarantee privacy, do not perform
> any kind of censorship or other control of message contents, then they
> are not Common Carriers and the ECPA does not apply.

ECPA is not limited to common carriers.
 
> Prodigy would be an example of the former, Internet email & news would
> be an example of the latter.
 
ECPA applies both to Prodigy and to Internet message traffic.


--Mike