mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-12-30 09:46:18 -05:00
126 lines
6.4 KiB
Plaintext
126 lines
6.4 KiB
Plaintext
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 |