Upon hearing that The Federal Registry, a daily accounting of proposed regulations, will grow to more than 70,000 pages this year, you begin to think that maybe we're being hamstrung by too many rules and regulations. That hasn't stopped legislators from coming up with more and more laws, however, and Senator Jim Exon (D-NE) has introduced a ring-tailed tooter.
On the surface, Exon's Electronic Decency Act of 1995 (S.314) aims to incorporate the concept of "digital communication" into the Communications Act of 1934. But once the Cornhusker's finest gets on his white horse, Exon proceeds to put the spurs to civil liberties by making Internet hosts, BBS operators, in-house LAN supervisors, and online-services providers subject to a $100,000 fine and two years in the pokey if an indecent message passes through its system. "I want to keep the information superhighway from resembling a red-light district," Exon has said. This from someone who doesn't even have an Internet e-mail address (come on, Jimbo, get with the program).
According to Exon, if someone in, say, France sends an obscene image over the Internet to someone in, say, Korea and the message goes through an Internet host in Nebraska, the owner of the U.S. host should be held liable. The proposal doesn't take into consideration foreign languages or attempts to hide objectionable information or images through encryption. It does conjure up subjective definitions of what's obscene and visions of Big Brother setting on a network node, monitoring messages as they pass by. Exon's bill, which has been sent to the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, reportedly has a good chance of passing.
Of course, you could ask Jake Baker if he thinks we need another law regulating indecent messaging on the Internet. Baker, a University of Michigan student, posted a story in the alt.sex.stories newsgroup describing abduction, torture, mutilation, rape, and murder. Because Baker ill-advisedly used the name of a woman in one of his classes, the university suspended him, a U.S. attorney charged him with interstate transmission of a threat to injure, the FBI arrested him, and a U.S. magistrate judge held him without bond.
Clearly, Baker has a big problem--and not just a legal one--and I'm as disgusted as the next person at what he wrote. But still, you have to wonder what poses a greater threat--sophomoric fantasies or senatorial delusions.
According to his mother, Baker heard the woman's name (which hasn't been released) called out in a class of 200 students and used it in his story because the last name constituted a sexual pun. It's interesting that the original complaint didn't come from the woman, but from an Internet user in Russia who complained to the university. Baker, who posted the story four months prior to his arrest, has never met or approached the woman. If convicted, he faces five years in jail.
Another student, Daniel Bernstein of the University of California at Berkeley, is putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to fighting technology-related regulations. Bernstein, in concert with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has launched a federal lawsuit (Civil Action No. C95-0582-MHP in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California) seeking to bar the government from restricting publication of cryptographic documents and software. Bernstein argues that encryption-related export-control laws are "impermissible prior restraint on speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
And speaking of lawsuits, Apple recently unleashed another legal broadside at Microsoft, this time over QuickTime code that's present in Microsoft's Video for Windows. At issue is low-level assembly code in a file called DCISVGA.DRV, which deals with graphics chip registers.
Okay, I've taken potshots at Microsoft from time to time, most recently in the March 1995 DDJ, where I chided the company over its Windows 95 logo-licensing policy. At the time, I said that Microsoft should start treating third-party developers as partners, rather than serfs.
Giving credit when it's due, Microsoft appears to be treating third-parties as partners (or at least acting as a benevolent father) in this instance. In particular, Microsoft has said it will "insulate_developers from the impact of Apple's legal actions." In doing so, Microsoft sent a letter to developers stating that "if Apple sues any developer over use and distribution of Microsoft Video For Windows 1.1d, Microsoft will defend any such lawsuit."
Continuing in the spirit of credit giving, I'd like to extend thanks to Scott Johnson of NTergaid, Mark Mallett of MV Communications, and Manny Sawit of Dr. Dobb's Journal for the work they did in getting the Dr. Dobb's Journal World Wide Web home page up and running. If you're into net surfing, stop by and visit us at http://www.ddj.com. In addition to ftp links to source-code listings that appear in Dr. Dobb's Journal and the Dr. Dobb's Sourcebook series, you'll find selected articles from current and past issues, and the complete text of the Dr. Dobb's Developer Update newsletter. We're also making available samplers from the Dr. Dobb's CD-ROM Library, author guidelines, job postings, subscription information, and e-mail contact for DDJ staff members.
editor-in-chief
Copyright © 1995, Dr. Dobb's Journal