Re: More on digital postage

At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote:
>
>Tim may says:
>
>>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut
>>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these
>>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to
>>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it
>>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned.
>
>I have to disagree here.  The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised
>use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. 

However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full 
well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the 
phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information 
provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing 
junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Mr. Bell wrote:
> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote:
> >Tim may says:
> >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut
> >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these
> >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to
> >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it
> >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned.
> >I have to disagree here.  The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised
> >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. 
> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full 
> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the 
> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information 
> provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing 
> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.

	That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected
to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone 
to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my 
home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to 
a beer out of my fridge?

	Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right,
and it doesn't make it legal.

application/pgp-message

At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote:
>Mr. Bell wrote:

>> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full
>> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the
>> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information
>> provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing
>> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.
>
>	That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected
>to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone
>to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my
>home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to
>a beer out of my fridge?

The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted
phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house
and wandering around is incorrect.

Consider a door with a doorbell or knocker. It is set up (by millenia of
tradition in our society) as a means of contacting the residents and
keeping them from entering.

Similarly, a listed phone number, or a phone number gotten through various
means, is a means of contacting those owning the number. Anyone is free to
call anyone--no permission is needed.

Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's
doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort
relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack."

(Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in
these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the
fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.)

These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on
the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal
prosecution under proposed new laws.

(I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no
court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend
of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting
down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even
likely he'll ever get any relief.)

What CompuServe did was quite different, as CompuServe decided that some
e-mail would not be delivered. This is essentially comparable to the Postal
Service deciding that mail from the National Rifle Association is, to them,
"junk," or to the phone company deciding that phone calls from Libya or
Iraq or some other unfavored nation will be fed to a dead number.

Getting the courts and the regulators involved in deciding what speech is
junk and what is not junk is unconstitutional, which was my earlier point.

--Tim May


On the f

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Mr. May wrote: 
> At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote:
> >Mr. Bell wrote:
> >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full
> >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the
> >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information
> >> provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing
> >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.
> >	That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected
> >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone
> >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my
> >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to
> >a beer out of my fridge?
> 
> The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted
> phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house
> and wandering around is incorrect.

	With phone calls, yes. With unwanted faxes no. With Phone Calls, 
and knocks on the door I have the option of simply not answering. Faxes
(in certain enviroments) you can't do that with. 

> Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's
> doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort
> relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack."
> (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in
> these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the
> fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.)

	Or simply a societal acceptance of retaliation(sp?) Someone who
constantly wakes you up in the middle of the night, well you just arrange
it so they get no sleep. 

> These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on
> the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal
> prosecution under proposed new laws.
> (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no
> court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend
> of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting
> down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even
> likely he'll ever get any relief.)

	I (I think like you) feel that almost no one will get convicted
of these "crimes" unless the attacker simply goes too far. 

> What CompuServe did was quite different, as CompuServe decided that some
> e-mail would not be delivered. This is essentially comparable to the Postal
> Service deciding that mail from the National Rifle Association is, to them,
> "junk," or to the phone company deciding that phone calls from Libya or
> Iraq or some other unfavored nation will be fed to a dead number.

	Not really. The US Postal service is a regulated monopoly, and 
is the only game in town. If they weren't a regulated monopoly, I wouldn't
care if they refused to carry certain peices of mail, the mailer would have 
the option of simply using a different service.

	Thus with compuserve, they have the right (as a private company)
to refuse to deliver what ever they wish. And their users have the right 
to go elsewhere. 

> Getting the courts and the regulators involved in deciding what speech is
> junk and what is not junk is unconstitutional, which was my earlier point.

	Which I argee with.

Peter J. Capelli writes:

 >  I pay for my phone service;

I assume you pay a flat rate and not by the incoming fax!

 >  I pay for my fax, toner, and
 > paper.  If they use my property without getting permission first, 

So, if a person uses a computer fax-modem and, therefore, paper,
toner, etc. aren't used, does this change the situation?  

Suddenly we're very close to the situation of junk-email.  (Except
that the sender of the junk fax incurs long-distance charges, if there
are any, not to mention he pays for the phone service the same as you 
do)

 > I believe
 > that *is* ( or should be ) illegal.  

"There should be a law!"  5 of the ugliest words in the English
language when put together.

Look.  I understand your sentiment and junk faxes piss me off as well,
but the cost of government regulation is too high in my opinion.  As
I'm sure you're aware, government does a *great* job of creating
sensible and useful regulations.

Unfortunately, fax machines can't distinguish the text of messages, so
you can't do filtering or bounce messages, etc.  (Although I have been
known to send a nasty reply fax or two.  And I never fail to call the
send of the fax to complain and have the junk faxes terminated)


 > Your argument that my plugging a fax 
 > machine itno a phone line I know it will answer, even if it is unauthorized,
 > is tantamount to saying that if I leave my keys in my car, anyone can take
 > it, and legally so!  While it may be foolish to do that, being
 > foolish is not
 > a crime 

You purchased the fax equipment.  Why should the government regulate
its usage for you?  

Ideally, the manufacture of fax machines which are able to
authenticate a sender in some manner before permitting the actually
permitting transmission of the fax out to paper would likely eliminate
junk faxes.

Of course, this would involve strong encryption.  And -- wouldn't you
know it! -- that's covered by a range of confusing and threatening
federal regulations



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door,
   PGP Key fingerprint =        | How are you gonna come? 
   6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2      | With your hands upon your head,   
   59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63      | Or on the trigger of your gun?" 
Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton"
"Subject:" to get my public key |   _London_Calling_ , 1979
---------------------------------------------------------------------