Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)

[Al Billings <mimir@u.washington.edu>]

On Fri, 1 Oct 1993, Mike Godwin wrote:

> Al Billings writes:
> 
> >  Only if he has stated that he allows private mail. Most sysops have
> > specifically worded policy statements for their systems that say that the
> > sysop can read any and all messages on the system and may do so at any
> > time.
> 
> That's all very nice, but it doesn't enable a FIDO sysop to intercept
> messages from people who are not users of his or her particular system.
> Those people did not waive their rights to privacy under the ECPA.

 As has already been shown from Fidonet policy, Fidonet does not guarantee
private mail  in any from and, in fact, advises that mail will be going
through many sites and can be read along the way.

> > Bulletin boards do not normally offer truely private mail because of
> > some of the legal implications.
> 
> This is a common myth. First of all, there are many BBSs that do
> offer truly private mail, or whose sysops, as a matter of policy, do not
> read others' private mail. Secondly, there's no legal liability associated
> with allowing e-mail privacy. Third, federal law (the ECPA) bars
> sysops from examining mail except under some very precisely defined
> circumstances.

 The third point does not apply if the sysops offer no private mail in the
first place.

> I suggest that you inform sysops who tell you otherwise that they can
> contact me at the Legal Services Department of EFF. You've got my e-mail
> address already--my phone number is 202-347-5400.

 I don't need sysops to tell me otherwise. I've been running my own BBS
for over three years. My system has a very clear policy statement that
refers to the ECPA and states VERY clearly who can read the messages
posted on my system in different areas. As I'm not a Fido hub (and barely
participate in that network at all), I don't have to worry about passing
other mail through my system.

Wassail,
Al Billings,
Sysop of The Sacred Grove 1:343/56