S.2575 comments

[Daniel M. Frank]

   I've had a look through the updated version of the Senate bill, and have
a couple comments.  I am not an attorney or legislator, and I do not have a
copy of Title 18 to amend, so these may not be very informed observations:

   First, I was surprised at how mild much of the bill appears to be, con-
sidering the cries of outrage that accompanied its posting.  It's got
some stupidity (I'll get to that), but much of the bill seems to be 
directed at updating existing communications and wiretapping law to
reflect the existence of electronic media.  Most of its poor ideas seem
to stem from ignorance rather than real malicious intent.

   I see two serious difficulties with the bill.  First, and of most concern
to usenet and BBS operators, is the complete failure to recognize the
distinction between public, ad hoc, voluntary message services such as
usenet, and for-profit electronic mail carriers.  It has been pointed 
out already that the legal burdens placed upon a usenet site to maintain
the privacy and security of communications is onerous.  The bill may
open a site operator up to criminal and civil action in the case that
some user feels he has been damaged; you would have to consult an attorney
to be sure.

   More interesting to me is that a government agency can obtain an
order requiring you to make copies of all mail coming through your
site to a particular individual.  Since, to my knowledge, software to
do this is not commonly available, this may entail substantial expense,
for which you may or may not be able to be reimbursed.

   The second problem is, of course, the bill's simplemindedness with
regard to radio technology.  While seeming to exclude from penalties
the interception of clear channel communications in the land mobile
services, it then forbids interception of clear channel transmissions
by common carriers.  Excuse me, but doesn't that mean almost everyone
in the commercial communications business?  In addition, such things
as the interception of data on subcarriers is forbidden!  Thus, if
you have an SCA decoder, which anyone with $6.95, a Radio Shack, and
a copy of Popular Electronics can build, you are a criminal if you
intercept, for example, a reading service for the blind.  I think
it may also be illegal to pick up closed captioning without some
sort of authorization, but it's not entirely clear.

   By the way, there is some fascinating language forbidding interception
of signals "transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential
parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of
preserving the privacy of such communication".  Hmmm.  To my knowledge,
the owners of patents on such techniques (clearly they mean video
scrambling here) have, by filing such patents, made such modulation
techniques accessible to the public; they have not "withheld" them.  Also,
the bill does not specify who must have done the withholding, or what
constitutes an "essential parameter".  Barring a stupid judge (oh
well), is this enforceable?

   Anyway, this is just an amateur analysis, but I though it might stimulate
some discussion which, aside from the hand-wringing, has been absent.
Also, some of these points (please check with someone more legally adept
than myself), might form the focus of a letter to a senator.  I think
the point about reading services on SCA subcarriers and closed captioning
might get someone's attention, whether or not they're bogus.


------

      Dan Frank

	  Q: What's the difference between an Apple MacIntosh
	     and an Etch-A-Sketch?

	  A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.