[549] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS Acceptable Use Policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Apr 5 03:57:12 1991
From: njin!ddsw1.mcs.com!karl%uupsi.UUCP@psi.com (Karl Denninger)
To: stev@ftp.com (stev knowles)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 20:16:29 CST
Cc: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9104011443.AA17278@ftp.com>; from "stev knowles" at Apr 1, 91 9:43 am
> 4. ANS networks must not be used to transmit any
> communication where the meaning of the message, or its
> transmission or distribution, would violate any
> applicable law or regulation or would likely be highly
> offensive to the recipient or recipients thereof.
>
> sorry, kent, i find this *VERY* offensive, and have determined that
> both you and the originators of this *FILTH*, ANS, shoudl be
> repremanded.
>
> i assume you knew that this was going to happen. i would like to
> think that whomever at ANS is responsible for this would get out of
> the business of legislating morality.
The problem I have with this statement is that it is worded in such a way
that a flame on >anyone<, regardless of the medium, could be cause for
censure. Similarly, carrying alt.sex.pictures over the link, alt.drugs, or
anything like that could also be considered "likely to be highly offensive"
to at least SOME of the people on the other end.
The end result is to make it possible for ANS to stop anyone from sending
anything they don't like -- by pulling their connection. This is highly
undesirable.
I would like to see item (4) replaced with:
4. ANS networks must not be used to transmit any
communication where the meaning of the message,
or its transmission or distribution, would violate
any applicable law at the source point of the message.
This also clears up the problem of someone getting a SMTP message in
Australia, where laws are different than in the USA, and ending up with your
access pulled because someone complains about a violation of FOREIGN law.
(I am assuming that ANS' network is going to be USA only for the moment.)
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to know of all the laws across the earth,
much less those throughout all of the USA.
> 5. ANS networks must not be used for commercial
> purposes. However, if a use is consistent with the
> purposes and objectives of ANS, then commercial
> activities in support of that use will be considered
> an acceptable use of the network.
>
> i also have the feeling that ANS has offered my company a service
> that contradicts the above statement. would any of them like to
> comment here, or am i going to have to track them down?
Well, not really. By offering you a service which furthers ANS
connectivity, they are consistant with the purposes and objectives of ANS
(which may be non-profit now, but what about in a few years when their
monopoly runs out?)
I find that a problem too.
If commercial use is prohibited, then be consistent. Again, this allows
ANS, at any time, to pull the plug on a connection which the recipient may
find very useful indeed (ie: MIPS sending out press releases to
universities). This is a big grey area with the NFSNet, and it should be
eliminated.
The simple way to do this is to charge more for a commercial connection to
the backbone, while educational users pay less (subsidized in effect). If
ANS is being subsidized, this makes sense. If they're not, then everyone
should have equal access for the same cost.
See what happens when effective monopoly power is granted to a large
company? Frankly, I am not surprised. Look at the players -- IBM, in
particular, hardly has an untarnished record in this area. Prodigy sticks
in my mind in particular.......
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200]
Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T, req: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README
