                    The Law Versus Computers:
                   A Confounding Terminal Case

             By Lee Dembart, Times Editorial Writer
                   Los Angeles Times 08/11/85

  Technology sometimes advances faster than the law, creating no-
vel problems to challenge social and legal thought. The Xerox ma-
chine, for example, was a new form of printing press that eventu-
ally forced Congress to revise the copyright laws.

  The proliferation of electronic bulletin boards - on which mil-
lions of people exchange information using home computers and tel
ephones - has opened a new and powerful mode of communication lar
gely untouched by existing law. The nation's 2,500 computer bull-
etin boards are electronically published newspapers, and their op
erators  are, in  effect, newspaper publishers.  They should have
all the rights of publishers and the responsibilities for accura-
cy that go with them.

  This new electronic medium is as powerful as the Xerox machine,
providing nearly instantaneous international communication among
large numbers of people who are physically removed and will prob-
ably never meet. The technology brings back the era of the pamph-
leteer  - and goes one step further: It enables publication with-
out a press.

  But efforts are underway, in California and elsewhere, to  make
the  operators of computer bulletin  boards criminally liable for
what appears on them. These efforts threaten to clash with the fr
eedoms of speech and the press. They are likely to be unenforcea-
ble to boot. Legislative attempts to restrict communication  pose
serious First Amendment problems.

  While most material on computer bulletin boards involves the ro
utine exhange of harmless information, thoughts and chatter, leg-
islators  are concerned about the occasional entry that is libel-
ous, obscene or illegal. Should the operator of a bulletin  board
be criminally liable for such material? For example, computer hac
kers and phone "phreaks" sometumes use electronic bulletin boards
to post the numbers of valid consumer and telephone credit cards.
A Los Angeles television engineer,  Thomas G. Tcimpidis, 33,  was
threatened with prosecution last year because a bulletin board he
maintained contained the  numbers of two  stolen phone card  num-
bers.

  Beyond  its legal  aspects, the Tcimpidis  case illustrates the
scope of the bulletin boards. When word of the place raid on Tcim
pidis's home appeared on a bulletin board, it quickly spread, rea
ching between  a half-million  and  three-quarters of  a  million
board  watchers in 72 hours, according to Chuck Lindner, Tcimpid-
is's lawyer. Replies came from Japan, Australia, England and Can-
ada  as well as from most of the United States, Lindner said, and
a legal defense strategy was planned among far-flung lawyers over
the bulletin boards.

  The  case was eventually dropped, but  a bill is now making its
way through the Legislature that would make it a crime for a bul-
letin-board  operator to display unauthorized private information
after he has been notified that it is there. In Virginia, a  bill
has been introduced that would make it a crime to put or maintain
information on a computer bulletin board that would help  promote
the  sexual abuse of  children, even though  there is nothing ob-
scene about the information itself.  If two people sent  "Lolita"
back  and forth over a bulletin  board in Virginia, could they be
prosecuted?

  These measures suggest prior restraint of publication, which is
unconstitutional.  In an attempt to  aboid the constitutional is-
sues, the California bill  (SB 1012), sponsored  by Sen. John  T.
Doolittle  (R-Citrus Heights), is narrowly drawn. The information
it seeks to keep off bulletin boards is "a telephone number or ad
dress not listed in a public telephone directory, personal ident-
ification number, computer password, access code, credit card num
ber, debit card number or bank account number."

  That  may sound  like a  good idea,  but no  newspaper could be
found criminally liable for publishing  such material. It may  be
civilly  liable - someone who lost  money as a result of publica-
tion could sue for damages -  but it would not have violated  the
penal  code. Under Doolittle's bill, passed  by the Senate and a-
waiting action in the Assembly, the operator of a computer bulle-
tin  board in violation  of the law  could be sent  to jail for a
year and fined $5,000.

  It would be  extremely difficult  to enforce.  How much  notice
must  be given. Does the operator of a bulletin bord have a right
to object to or question the  assertion that the material on  the
board  is unauthorized? If not,  credit-card companies, banks and
the like would have the authority to restrain publication  simply
by demanding it. Who has the right to demand suppression?

  No matter what the answers to these questions, the fact is that
the law affects only California. It's easy enough to set up a bul
letin board in Nevada and avoid the problem completely.

  There are more questions. The Federal Communications Act regul-
ates telephone communication. Newspapers are constitutionally pro
tected.  Which rules cover computer bulletin  boards - in a sense
hybrid forms? Or are they a new form for which new rules must  be
written?  And why should those rules  be stricter than those that
already exist?

  Bulletin boards are protected by the First Amendment, and  they
should  have  all the  freedoms  associated with  freedom  of the
press. Laws already exist to  prosecute the computer crimes  that
authorities  are properly trying to  stop. New laws that restrict
freedom of expression are unnecessary and harmful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by Ron Bell, DATANET System Manager: Mr. Dembart makes a
good argument, but I'm wary of the analogy. Bulletin boards rese-
mble newspapers some  ways; they  differ greatly  in others.  The
discussion  of  liable  is interesting.  If  someone  prints here
that another user is guilty of a crime, can I, as the "publisher"
be  sued for liable for holding the skapegoat up to public ridic-
ule? Seems to me, bulletin  boards operate more like free  speech
than  papers. A great deal of prior restraint takes place at est-
ablished publications, mostly  by editors. There  are no  editors
here.  Imposing prior restraint, then, would be restricting free-
dom of speech. Of  course, if you're  a crooked politician,  that
may be a good idea.


 then, would be re