Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.stargate
Subject: misc. stargate items
Message-ID: <501@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Jan-85 18:49:56 EST
Article-I.D.: vortex.501
Posted: Sun Jan 13 18:49:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 00:48:18 EST
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 115
Xref: watmath net.news:2966 net.news.stargate:3

Future postings on this topic should normally be sent to 
net.news.stargate only.

Just a few comments:

1) I don't think any sort of complex contract scheme, with each
   site trying to get others to sign authentication contracts,
   could work.  Good luck finding the right people at each site
   to sign the contract, and then GETTING them to sign it!
   And if an anonymous posting showed up (it's easy for people to
   forge both usernames and sitenames in articles) what do you do?
   How do you prove who sent the message, even if you did manage
   to get signed agreements?  The big target for suits remains
   the broadcast point, since it's the ONE place where you know
   for sure who is operating it.  Everything else is very foggy
   as far as identification is concerned, even if (as I doubt)
   you could get every site and every user to sign something
   (and had software to enforce authentication).  I just don't
   think it's practical.

2) The analogy regarding suits is best not made with telco, which
   normally provides one-person to one-person links, but rather
   radio, TV, and magazines, where the legal history shows that in cases
   of suits, both the author AND the publishing/broadcast entity often
   get hit.  Since with stargate it would be very hard to prove
   who was the original author, it makes it even more likely
   that the broadcast entity would be the target.  Even if you
   knew the author, the entity would still be at risk.
   No matter how you try to decentralize, that central broadcast 
   target is looming there.

3) One person (Steve Woods, I think) said that anyone who sent
   unscreened materials through something like stargate would
   be a "damn fool."  I agree.  In past messages, I've layed out
   the reasons why unscreened traffic is not practical, from
   technical, legal, logistical, and the purely practical financial 
   aspects.  I refer people to those (long) messages for details, or
   contact me directly.

4) I've detected before this looming fear that some people have that
   if stargate is successful, sites might drop their existing links
   and thusly Usenet (as we know it) might die.  I find this to
   be an interesting fear, given the fact that it sounds like some
   people would like to prevent others from receiving only the
   materials that they wish to receive.  Some people seem to feel
   that there is some sort of rule that every site has
   to be willing to pass along all the "stuff" of Usenet, as some
   sort of fundamental law.  And these same people fear that once
   people have a technical means to choose only the stuff they
   would prefer to pay for, they will do so.  

   This amounts to forced charity in a number of cases.  And the
   charity is already beginning to break down as administrators
   arbitrarily start cutting back on netnews for purely financial
   reasons.  The cutbacks are going to occur WITH or WITHOUT
   stargate.  As the net grows they are inevitable.  At least stargate
   provides an alternative.  Right now, there is no alternative
   for users if their administrators cut back -- some sites have
   been forced to drop completely off the net.

   But the important thing is that if people feel that they want
   to continue passing along unscreened material by phone, they 
   simply find other sites that feel the same way and are willing
   to pay the costs.  That's how Usenet started.  But it is unreasonable
   for these same people to act as if they have a RIGHT to force
   other sites to support such activities, to a virtually unlimited
   degree, if they don't want to (or can't afford to!)

   Someone suggested that there might be some legal way to force
   sites to keep running Usenet via various bizarre legal tricks.
   In other words, this person suggests that it's OK to force people
   to spend money to pass around netnews, even if they don't want to,
   just so that the undiluted flow will continue.  What happens
   as the net grows and the phone bills increase?  Are companies
   to fire employees so that they'll have the money for phone
   calls to support the "mandated Usenet service"?

While Usenet traffic was relatively light, the costs
involved (in money and time) of running Usenet were fairly small.
But for many sites, this is no longer the case, and I can't see
valid reasons to try hold back the clock and prevent alternatives
that will help let people decide how they want to spend their
money for such services.  People who feel they can best use
stargate would use it.  Sites that wanted to participate in an
unscreened network would do that.  Or both.  But unless 
there are alternatives like stargate, the site cutbacks are going
to occur (purely for financial reasons) anyway, and there
won't be any alternatives available.

Usenet might *seem* to be a free ride to many people, but it
is not, and in reality it never has been.  At least individual
sites should have the ability to make their own decisions,
after considering their needs and resources, regarding the sort
of role they wish to play in the nets, however expansive or
limited that role might be.  There will never be anything (as far
as I'm concerned) to stop any collection of sites from sending whatever 
Usenet materials (on whatever topics and with whatever quality they choose) 
via the phone, just as they presumably do now.  All that would be required
is that those sites all agree that that's what *they* want to do.  Then
they call each other and do it!  

However, I feel that depending on the "forced" participation of sites
who *don't* want to do this, and/or who aren't able or willing to pay
those costs, is both unreasonable and impractical in the long run.
The sites that want all unscreened news should obviously pay (among 
themselves, via whatever cost dispersal techniques they wish) for
those transfers.  Those who don't want that much stuff (or want
different stuff) can decide to choose some alternative means for
getting the info they *do* want.  What it all amounts to, in the end,
is for sites to pay for what they want (among themselves as a group
if desired--nobody says that slave polling has to stop!) rather than 
to force sites into paying for things they don't really want or
cannot afford.

--Lauren--