From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 13:51:56 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Fidonet, policies, privacy, and power.
Message-ID: <VuJPac1w164w@ideath.goldenbear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The following is from Fidonet Policy Documet 4.06, dated May 5 1989.
It's marked as not being in force yet, as it's awaiting ratification;
dunno if it ever was or not.

----------

2.1.3  Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node
The sysop listed in the nodelist entry is responsible for all traffic
entering FidoNet via that system.  This includes (but is not limited to)
traffic entered by users, points, and any other networks for which the system
might act as a gateway.  If a sysop allows "outside" messages to enter
FidoNet via the system, the gateway system must be clearly identified by
FidoNet node number as the point of origin of that message, and it must act
as a gateway in the reverse direction.  Should such traffic result in a
violation of Policy, the sysop must rectify the situation.

2.1.4  Encryption and Review of Mail
FidoNet is an amateur system.  Our technology is such that the privacy of
messages cannot be guaranteed.  As a sysop, you have the right to review
traffic flowing through your system, if for no other reason than to ensure
that the system is not being used for illegal or commercial purposes.
Encryption obviously makes this review impossible.  Therefore, encrypted
and/or commercial traffic that is routed without the express permission of
all the links in the delivery system constitutes annoying behavior.  See
section 1.3.6 for a definition of commercial traffic.

[...]

2.1.6  Private Netmail
The word "private" should be used with great care, especially with users of a
BBS.  Some countries have laws which deal with "private mail", and it should
be made clear that the word "private" does not imply that no person other
than the recipient can read messages.  Sysops who cannot provide this
distinction should consider not offering users the option of "private mail".

If a user sends a "private message", the user has no control over the number
of intermediate systems through which that message is routed.  A sysop who
sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect by sending the
message direct to the recipient's system, thus guaranteeing that only the
recipient or another individual to whom that sysop has given authorization
can read the message.  Thus, a sysop may have different expectations than a
casual user.

2.1.6.1  No Disclosure of in-transit mail

Disclosing or in any way using information contained in private netmail
traffic not addressed to you or written by you is considered annoying
behavior, unless the traffic has been released by the author or the recipient
as a part of a formal policy complaint.  This does not apply to echomail
which is by definition a broadcast medium, and where private mail is often
used to keep a sysop-only area restricted.

2.1.6.2  Private mail addressed to you

The issue of private mail which is addressed to you is more difficult than
the in-transit question treated in the previous section.  A common legal
opinion holds that when you receive a message it becomes your property and
you have a legal right to do with it what you wish.  Your legal right does
not excuse you from annoying others.

In general, sensitive material should not be sent using FidoNet.  This ideal
is often compromised, as FidoNet is our primary mode of communication.  In
general, if the sender of a message specifically requests in the text of the
message that the contents be kept confidential, release of the message into a
public forum may be considered annoying.

There are exceptions.  If someone is saying one thing in public and saying
the opposite in private mail, the recipient of the private mail should not be
subjected to harassment simply because the sender requests that the message
not be released.  Judgement and common sense should be used in this area as
in all other aspects of FidoNet behavior.

2.1.7  Not Routing Mail

You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to do so.  You
are not obligated to route traffic for all if you route it for any, unless
you hold a Network Coordinator or Hub Coordinator position.  Routing traffic
through a node not obligated to perform routing without the permission of
that node may be annoying behavior.  This includes unsolicited echomail.

If you do not forward a message when you previously agreed to perform such
routing, the message must be returned to the sysop of the node at which it
entered FidoNet with an explanation of why it was not forwarded.  (It is not
necessary to return messages which are addressed to a node which is not in
the current nodelist.)  Intentionally stopping an in-transit message without
following this procedure constitutes annoying behavior.  In the case of a
failure to forward traffic due to a technical problem, it does not become
annoying unless it persists after being pointed out to the sysop.

[...]

4.2  Routing Inbound Mail (Net Coordinator Responsibilities)

It is your responsibility as Network Coordinator to coordinate the receipt
and forwarding of host-routed inbound netmail for nodes in your network.  The
best way to accomplish this is left to your discretion.
[...]
You are not required to forward encrypted, commercial, or illegal mail.
However, you must follow the procedures described in section 2.1.7 if you do
not forward the mail.

----------

(end of Fidonet policy quote)

The gist of Section 9 of the policy document, together with the Appendix
of Fidonet "case histories" seems to be that the various Fidonet Czars
can kick you out of the net if they consider you "excessively annoying".

As far as I can tell, the ability (perhaps the right) to fuss around in
other folks' business and other folks' mail is one of the factors (along
with the ability to create and enforce any number of rules and regulations)
which makes people think it's fun to run a BBS. The opportunity to exercise
power seems to be a powerful motivator, whether it's on the net, on a BBS,
or otherwise. Suggesting that we need to address that tendency in the
"online" community before we address it in the general populace seems
misguided to me.


--
Greg Broiles
greg@goldenbear.com                     Baked, not fried.