From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:12:06 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Telcom bill report
In-Reply-To: <01HZ2U34JNWW8Y53CL@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <199512220011.TAA15741@thor.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>    The legislation would impose fines of up to $100,000 and prison terms
>    of up to two years on people who make "indecent" material
>    available to minors over computer networks. That could pose big
>    problems for companies that provide online information services.

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but it seems to me that the wording of this part
of the bill (S.652) has been amended a bit. Sec. 402 of 652 now amends Section 
223 (47 U.S.C. 223) subsection (a) to fine or imprison whoever "knowingly 
permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any 
activity prohibited by paragraph (1) [indecent communication with intent to 
annoy blah blah] with the intent that it be used for such activity". (this is
from the "House Appropriation Bill as Passed by the Senate" version of S.652
on http://thomas.loc.gov)

This (new, I think) part requiring "intent that it be used for such activity"
looks like an enormous loophole to me. I can't think of many people who
provide communications services _with the intent that they be used to harass
[etc.] others with obscene [etc.] communications_. 

Could a lawyer comment on why intent would be easier to establish than I
believe offhand ?

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>