No Subject

* Reply to msg originally in CYPHERPUNKS

> From: mdiehl@triton.unm.edu (J. Michael Diehl)

> I had heard a rumor that fidonet forbade encrypted e-mail, but I
> had to find out for myself.  Well, they do.

No, they do not.  This is a myth, and you have drawn a mistaken
conclusion from your experiment.

This thread has already run off into left field by the time I got to it,
but to try to drag a little reality back in, I submit the following:

FIDOnet has within it SECURENET, which is a netmail-handling network
specifically for encrypted netmail.  Mail points not wishing to handle
PGPed or other encrypted netmail are provided with software to
automatically remove PGP netmail and re-route it into the FIDO SECURENET
network.

FIDOnet has at least two conferences specifically for PGP and other
public-key encryption system discussions and key exchange, PUBLIC_KEYS
and KEY_DROP (if I remember correctly).

Now, the point most internet people forget is that FIDOnet hosts are
hobbyists with 100% privately-owned machines and generally pay for the
entire participation of their userbase out of their own pockets,
excepting a few who get some dollars here and there from their generous
callers.  As a completely justified consequence, they can decide if they
allow encrypted traffic _on their individual BBSs_.  In that there is
considerable fear of the consequences of illegal activity being
conducted on their BBSs via encrypted mail, many sysops (such as the one
you mention, leaving aside, for now, that he apparently confused a PGP
key with an encrypted message) do not wish to take the risk and forbid
encrypted traffic.  They also monitor e-mail, if only incidentally
during the course of routine system maintenance, and notices to this
effect are generally contained in log-on screens and new-user info
files.

In that these sysops are extremely, _personally_ vulnerable, they are
generally more cautious than those internet folks who can hide behind
institutions and businesses.

In spite of this, there are a very large number of FIDOnet sysops who
participate in SECURENET and encourage the spread of encryption
technology to the general public.

anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com writes:
 > Now, the point most internet people forget is that FIDOnet hosts are
 > hobbyists with 100% privately-owned machines and generally pay for the
 > entire participation of their userbase out of their own pockets,
 > excepting a few who get some dollars here and there from their generous
 > callers.

While I agree that this is laudable (in fact, I hereby laud such
sysops), I don't think this is much different than small, medium, and
large businesses and some private individuals which route Internet and
USENET mail without question and without charge on a constant basis.

 > As a completely justified consequence, they can decide if they
 > allow encrypted traffic _on their individual BBSs_.  

Encrypted "traffic"?  Encrypted traffic to/from the BBS itself, maybe.
However, it seems to me that it's an open question in this discussion
as to whether it's legal for the BBS operator to enforce such a
restriction on traffic flowing through the machine as part of a
multi-hop route.

 > In that there is
 > considerable fear of the consequences of illegal activity being
 > conducted on their BBSs via encrypted mail, many sysops (such as the one
 > you mention, leaving aside, for now, that he apparently confused a PGP
 > key with an encrypted message) do not wish to take the risk and forbid
 > encrypted traffic.

This is the issue: are such sysops, in the quest to prevent illegal
activity, engaging in an illegal activity?

 > They also monitor e-mail, if only incidentally
 > during the course of routine system maintenance, and notices to this
 > effect are generally contained in log-on screens and new-user info
 > files.

Well, it seems to me that to actually prevent encrypted traffic from
flowing through the site, pretty much *all* mail would have to be
screened.

 > In that these sysops are extremely, _personally_ vulnerable, they are
 > generally more cautious than those internet folks who can hide behind
 > institutions and businesses.

But the sad truth may be that they're damned if they do and damned if
they don't.  Being the owner of the machine and providing a free
service don't seem to be relevant facts when examining the practice of
e-mail filtering by examination in light of the ECPA.

--
Mike McNally

anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com writes:
 > Now, the point most internet people forget is that FIDOnet hosts are
 > hobbyists with 100% privately-owned machines and generally pay for the
 > entire participation of their userbase out of their own pockets,
 > excepting a few who get some dollars here and there from their generous
 > callers.

I have never forgotten this. But their commitment and efforts do not
amount to an amendment to federal law.

 > As a completely justified consequence, they can decide if they
 > allow encrypted traffic _on their individual BBSs_.  

Under what legal theory do they get an ECPA exemption as a "completely
justified consequence"?

 > In that there is
 > considerable fear of the consequences of illegal activity being
 > conducted on their BBSs via encrypted mail, many sysops (such as the one
 > you mention, leaving aside, for now, that he apparently confused a PGP
 > key with an encrypted message) do not wish to take the risk and forbid
 > encrypted traffic.

What they don't realize is that, rather than reducing the risk of legal
liability, they are increasing it.

 > They also monitor e-mail, if only incidentally
 > during the course of routine system maintenance, and notices to this
 > effect are generally contained in log-on screens and new-user info
 > files.

Any monitoring that results *directly* as a function of system maintenance
is okay--it's sanctioned by ECPA.

 > In that these sysops are extremely, _personally_ vulnerable, they are
 > generally more cautious than those internet folks who can hide behind
 > institutions and businesses.

If they were really cautious, they'd talk to a lawyer before setting
policy based on some guess as to what their legal liabilities may be.


--Mike