BAD NEWS :( Government amendments reinforce Big Browser

[Quentin Campbell]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> 	On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:43:42 +0100 (GMT)
> 	Quentin Campbell <Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk> said...
> 
> > In the case of messages to a mailing list, the "signalling" to the
> > "apparatus" is again done by the message headers, but this time it is the
> > envelope "To" header that is the key. The body of the message is not
> > involved in any way in determining who the new recipients are and is
> > simply copied and re-sent to the new recipients. Thus again no problem.
> > BUT ...
> >  
> > ... a problem arises with mailing list software on MTAs that accepts
> > commands such as "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "list", etc, as a text string
> > by itself in the body of the message. In this case the "signalling" to the
> > "apparatus" is being done by the body of the message (the "content") as
> > well as the message headers so in this case the whole message, headers +
> > body, appears to be "communications data" by the definition implied in the
> > amendment. 
> 
> I think majordomo may be part of a communications system when it is
> forwarding mail to a list. I have no problem with that bit of it.
> 
> But when majordomo is itself the endpoint of a communication (e.g.
> for subscribe/unsubscribe, or to pass messages to the list owner),
> than I would argue that it is acting as a database (just like a web
> server is) and thus not part of the telecommunications system. But that
> argument stands on the assumption that the end points are not part
> of the telecommunications system, and I have niot yet heard how the
> amendment to that effect fared in the Lords this morning.

If the MTA is passing messages to the list owner it almost certainly is
not an endpoint but is acting as a relay to an endpoint (the list
owner's host or mailbox host).

However it seems pretty clear from what Roland Perry and Nicholas Bohm
claim about final destination recipient hosts for e-mail that "end points"
*are* "apparatus" in a "telecommunications system".

The implications are grim and I hope the Lords can do something about it.

You have argued here and in a later posting that certain situations in MTA
functionality could be excluded by accepted definition from the effect of
the amendment as it stands. You further hope that ECHR action may bolster
that approach.

However I am far less sanguine about this approach because it runs counter
to all our collective experience as to how government misuse and abuse
their powers through conspiracy or cock-up. And in the case of RIP the
mechanisms for highlighting this and taking it to court are very
restricted and proscribed indeed.
 
Quentin
--
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209     Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765     Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can get its own."