RE: On Internet and social responsibility

From: measl@mfn.org [mailto:measl@mfn.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:01 AM

> Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this
> propaganda?

Maybe becuase they believe that censorship of opposing
opinions is BAD?

Actually, John Barryhill, on the /ICANN/DNSO/GA list, pointed out that there
are a few domain registrations where the registrar accepted registration
from denizens of the "proscribed countries" list. That registrar,
"Register.Com" in this case, is technically in violation of the law. My
guess is that, they never checked the law, or that list, in the first place.
As US companies, there are certain individuals and countries that we are not
allowed to do business with. Until now, the high-tech community has taken
those laws too lightly. We shouldn't have residents of Libya, for example,
on our client/customer list at all. Routing traffic to those countries
shouldn't be an issue either. It simply shouldn't be done, by a US-based
company. These proscription lists have been around for over 10 years. How
many of us are violating it without knowlege? BTW, all of us that have our
corporate charters from any part of the US are effected by this. Willful
violations can carry some severe penalties.

> Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for
> that site.

And do what exactly? They have every right to speak, even
if you don't happen to like the message.

Actually, they don't. The law says so. Personally, I have no problems with
US State telling me I can't do business with terrorists. Do you? I actually
think that it's nice that US State is willing to identify, with
verification, terrorist supporting countries, so that I can chose to avoid
doing business with them. It helps a lot when I can point to a US gov
directive prohibiting me from doing business with them. They can't sue me
for discriminatory practices because I'm following the law. On the
flip-side, those of you that have such undiscovered liabilities can exepect
to hear from our government sometime.

It is time to weed through the customer/client lists folks.

Personally, I have no problems with
US State telling me I can't do business with terrorists. Do you?

Absolutely I do. I would have no problem with the USG placing
people/countries/whatever on lists that I could use as a reference to make
a *volutary* decision as to whether I wanted to do business with them, but
to proscribe it is wrong.

First of all, I may not necessarily agree with the USG on all of these
"entries", secondly, the lists are obviously not compiled in a manner
designed solely to cut of the "bad guys". For example, we have China as a
"most favored nation". Right there the whole idea of an impartial list
falls apart...

Aside from the impartiality issue, I do not believe that the USG has a
constitutional right to forbid me from engaging any person/place/thing in
an otherwise lawful transaction.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<snip>
Aside from the impartiality issue, I do not believe that the USG has
a constitutional right to forbid me from engaging any
person/place/thing in an otherwise lawful transaction.
</snip>

It's nice that you don't believe it, that doesn't change the fact
that they do have the right. (Hint: see crypto export laws for case
law)

Regards,
Matt

- --
Matt Levine
@Home: matt@deliver3.com
@Work: matt@easynews.com
ICQ : 17080004
PGP : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF

The fact that a court may have ruled that this is constitutionally
permissable does not make it so, it merely makes it "legal". Remember Jim
Crow.