From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 15:34:15 PDT
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights
In-Reply-To: <199404032154.OAA07844@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9404031725.A2543-0100000@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 3 Apr 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Think "absence of centralized law," not "what new laws and "rights"
> can we think up?" 

Unfortunately, I don't think the anarchy of the net will work for much 
longer.  Sooner or later, cryptography issues aside, somebody is going to 
regulate access or content or both.

> As you'll see, I don't think Robert's ideal are very libertarian at
> all. (The motivations may be, but anytime one speaks of a "right of
> access" to something that costs money, that is the product of another
> person's labor and ingenuity.....well, why not a right declaring
> access to shelter and transportation, etc., shall not be denied based
> on an inability to pay? And so on.

I'll re-qualify that below.  I didn't fully explain my position.

> > 	Freedom to say what you wish without fear of retaliation
> 
> So if you are in my house or on my mailing list and you begin
> detweilering, I have no recourse? I can't "retaliate" because that
> would violate your rights?

Ok, I should have qualified this as well.  It also has to do with the proper 
'forum' as well (and I didn't want to get into specific examples in my 
original posting).  The old idea that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded 
theatre.  Not because 'Fire' is a censored word, or yelling 'fire' is bad 
in all cases, but because a crowded theatre is an improper forum.

As a list example, if you run a list about the ecology of fishes, and 
someone comes on and starts talking about women's rights issue (an actual 
example from LSTOWN-L), that is an improper forum.  You are "retaliating" 
not because of the speech itself, but because this specific forum does not 
exist FOR that speech.

I meant, I guess, that I have a right to, for example, criticize my 
government, religion, boss, etc without being fearful of real-world 
retaliation.  Why did I say this?  Because I can imagine the U.S. 
government deciding that electronic forums that aren't email, for 
example, are not protected speech, and thus if I am on IRC, and I 
and my buddys criticise Clinton, I am a candidate for arrest for 
"subversive" activity.

> > 	Freedom to participate in any forum without fear of retaliation
> 
> Again, Detweiler, Gannon, Hitler, and Rush Limbaugh *must* be
> tolerated in all forums? Huh?

Please see above.

> > 	Access will not be denied to a person without due process 
> 
> If I run a mailing list, or a service, or lease time on my networks or
> computers, then I don't want any crap about "due process" to stop me
> from throwing folks off who haven't paid, who haven't followed my
> rules, who have been abusive beyond my threshold, etc. The "due
> process" stuff has tainted what used to be a matter between buyer and
> seller, between patron and owner, between agents free to make or not
> make deals.

My initial concern, and this stems mostly from where I have encountered 
the networks, in an educational setting.  It is very common to 
arbitrarily remove a student from access with neither hearing nor even
informing of the student of why his/her access was cut.  Yes, it may have 
been justified, but it is still my opinion that a person shoudl be given 
not only a reason for denial of access, but also a chance to address 
those reasons.

As for private-oriented networks.  This is a little more sticky.  _IF_ 
they are common carrier (which is still, as I understand, being decided), 
then I feel that denying a patron, who is paying his bills, access is a 
tremendous wrong.  If computer services are NOT common carrier, than that is 
certainly a different issue, and should be a more internal matter.  As I 
understand, the telcos have a fairly established procedure of dealing 
with non-paying customers AND abusive customers.  Of course, they are 
also protected legally by common-carrier status.

Access shoudl be granted just like with a telephone.  If you can pay for 
it, you shoudl get it.  If you cannot pay for it, you don't get it.  But, 
if you can pay for it, you shoud NOT(!!!) be denied access.

> > 	Policies will not be implemented on the basis of race, colour,
> > 		creed, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, 
> > 		political or other opinion, national or social status, 
> > 		property, birth, or other status. 
> 
> OK, so a women's list can't exist in this Cyberspatial Utopia? What will
> the prison term be for excluding straights from a gay list? How many
> years in the gulag for running a cyberspace group that caters to
> Catholics and excludes Satanists?

See above about 'forums'.  Also, my largest concern above was with access 
policies (sorry, you are the 4th born child, you cannot use the 
computer.  Sorry, you are jewish, you are not allowed access).  Remember, 
there are areas outside the US that will routinely deny rights based on 
these arbitrary classifications that we in the U.S. don't even think 
about.  

Also, the idea was that you would get access to Cyberspace.  The 
individual groups and forums exist just as they do in real life.  I find 
it doubtful that there would be many blacks clamboring to be members of 
the KKK, and few members of the KKK wanting to belong to the NAACP.  The 
same applies to cyberspace.

> "Access" to this list, to my list, to your list, to Fred's Network, to
> a movie theater, to a concert, to a private gym, to whatever, is not a
> "right."

And I fear that, even if one can pay, it will become more and more common 
to outright deny access to people.  The lifeblood of this world is the 
passing of information.  The regulations I see on the horizon look to me 
to be a tourniquet on that information.

> The good news, though, is that strong crypto will make attempts to
> enforce such notions of "rights" a losing proposition.

But even strong crypto is useless if people cannot access the information 
systems.

---------

I think fundamentally you and I agree much more that it seems, so I hope 
not to start a flamewar. :-)

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)