[9197] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
International Enforcement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Robinson)
Tue Dec 21 06:06:35 1993
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 05:49:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
To: bukys@cs.rochester.edu, Privatizing the Internet <com-priv@psi.com>
>From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
bukys@cs.rochester.edu, writes:
> This is a little harder over international borders, but
> diplomats don't like international incidents, so perhaps some
> international agreement over "acceptable use" will evolve.
> Privacy-enhanced mail has some effect, but if the basic
> principle is that people take responsibility for what they
> send, the method of transmission is secondary. Enforcement is
> still possible.
Let's take the following scenario, which is in fact possible
A 12-year old boy downloads a uuencoded explicit picture of a 14-year-old
female which qualifies as "kiddie porn" and illegal under the laws of the
United States. (Canada has less strict standards; anything obscene in the
U.S. would also be that way there.)
The file was posted from a site in the Czech Republic via a connection to
Denmark to a mailing list in Austria, received from a reflector in New
Zealand to the 12-year old's account which is with the National Capital
Freenet in Canada, which he gets to by using the connection from Case
Western Freenet in Ohio, which he gets to by using the connection from the
University of California Library Catalog, which he gets to via the
University of Maryland Library Catalog, which he gets to by making a call
via PC Pursuit's Virginia dialup from a port Chicago
Here's the route:
Czech Republic -> Denmark -> Austria -> New Zealand -> Ohio ->
California -> Maryland -> Virginia -> Illinois
Which of these areas has jurisdiction? In at least one of them, there
is essentially no government and in another, pornography isn't illegal.
Or let's take another case. A Canadian judge has prohibited distribution
of any information about a particular murder case that happened there.
Because his edicts have no effect in the U.S., the Buffalo News has run a
full coverage of the story; people bring copies of the paper with
them into Canada are having them confiscated at the border.
Now, if someone in the U.S. posts messages about that case onto a newsgroup
that is distributed into Canada, is a crime committed? Is the person who
posts the messages (where it is legal to do so) committing a crime in
Canada? Is the person who reads the messages committing a crime? Both?
Neither?
---
Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
A real person has two reasons for doing anything ... a good reason and
the real reason.
