[11886] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Seeking advice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Berg)
Fri Apr 22 20:48:07 1994
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 07:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Berg <nwsyslaw@netcom.com>
To: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, gwh@crl.com
In-Reply-To: <199404220207.AA26685@crl.crl.com>
If systems operators conspire to blackball Canter & Siegel from accessing
the Inet they will run the risk that they will be charged with major
Civil Rights violations or possibly even RICO charges.
The first level of protection is to have an express requirement for
disclosure of identity in the user agreement coupled with an appropriate
remedy if a violation is discovered (think measured response).
The next level of protection is a contractual provision to restrict the
specific acts that are potentially damaging to the system.
Is there some way to statistically monitor outgoing traffic in such a way
that the problem can be nipped in the bud, a la computer trading programs
on the NYSE ? In certain situations it should be legally permissible to
delay the actual transmission of a suspect message profile without
actually invading the content of the messages. If there was no adequate
explanation for the message profile (i.e. many addresses) perhaps a
partial release of the message to some addresses could be done in a
reasonable time frame with a systems message header that the system
operator should be immediately contacted if the received message is
deemed to be an AUP violation, followed up with a full release of
messages if there is no apparent violation. After all, certain delays are
expected in a packet switched network.
The law of contracts protects all kinds of businesses through the
incorporation of boilerplate language. Those provisions on the back of an
equipment rental agreement or a motor vehicle sales agreement did not
spring up overnight. Each clause is related to some kind of
commercial problem which had to be solved. Unless the transaction is
between merchants a signed copy by the user is generally required
to pursue contractual remedies. There is always negligence (tort
law). Perhaps in the future there will be a requirement:
no signed contract - no service.
Larry Berg
nwsyslaw@netcom.com
Seattle, WA
On Thu, 21 Apr 1994, George Herbert wrote:
>
> I have just recieved a tip that Canter & Siegel (or however they're
> properly spelled) have one or more accounts on my system under
> assumed names. Suggestions?
>
> -george william herbert
> gwh@crl.com Speaking only for myself
>
>
