FYI France: Libraries & info control: M.Melot's proposal p.1/2 Two items appear here in this month's FYI France: 1) FYI France Online Service, http://www.fyifrance.com update: 79 new entries since Sep 15, and a new Resource List -- and site licenses! 2) The views of Michel Melot, newly appointed Conservateur Ge'ne'ral des Bibliothe`ques, on the debate raging in France over whether librarians and other "carriers" should be legally liable for Internet information which they "carry" -- Melot's proposal for fixing this -- and a glimpse of the debate which has ensued as a result of his proposal. A fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of a freedom of information system very different from some. XXX 1) FYI France Online Service, http://www.fyifrance.com update: 79 new entries since Sep 15, and a new Resource List -- and site licenses! Many thanks for the good response to last month's announcement of the new FYI France Online Service. A number of institutions say that they would like site licenses: so pricing for one year will be, One user password US$ 45 ($ 35 until January 1, 1997) One user password US$ 35 (for 10 users or more) Site license US$450 ($350 until January 1, 1997) Please advise, via email to kessler@well.sf.ca.us, if you would like a subscription or a site license. XXX 2) "The ISOC-CODE Debate: The point of view of Michel Melot" by Michel Melot [tr. JK.] [Michel Melot is former head conservateur of the De'partement des Estampes of the Bibliothe`que Nationale, former head of the Bibliothe`que Publique d'Information at the Centre Pompidou, and former President of the Conseil Supe'rieur des Bibliothe`ques. He just has been named France's Conservateur Ge'ne'ral des Bibliothe`ques. JK.] I. The position of a librarian The proposals of the interministerial task force* on the development of the Internet seem to have been welcomed by the professionals who met at the Ho^tel de Matignon* on Monday 20 May. [*The joint task force was formed by the Ministers of Culture and of "la Poste, Te'le'communications et l'Espace". *Paris' Ho^tel de Matignon houses the national Conseil des Ministres. JK.] Librarians and documentalists today are considered responsible for the information that they put at the disposal of the public. A library open to the public would not, in other words, distribute information that would contravene the laws of France or the Constitution. With the Internet it obviously is impossible for them to examine and safeguard all of the accessible information. At the same time, they can be prosecuted for crimes (racism, pedophilia, etc.) committed in fact by those whom they assist in getting online. They are therefore in the same situation as "common carriers" -- they transmit information, but are not responsible for it -- but the law, as we know, does not make this distinction. My position supports, therefore, those who currently are being prosecuted. a) The responsibility has to be taken on. One cannot pretend to believe that a message can be transmitted without human participation (and therefore complicity). b) Since the law punishes first authors, and distributors only by default, it seems necessary that authors always be identified, so as to avoid any situation in which someone else might be prosecuted "by default". c) It is not a question of allowing the "censorship" of the Internet in some arbitrary fashion but, rather, of applying to electronic messages the laws already applicable to other media. d) Legally the frontier between what is allowed and what is forbidden corresponds to that between "private communication" and "public communication". It is true that this distinction becomes difficult with electronic tools. It seems nevertheless that "private" might describe everything which is accessible only to a recipient designated by the producer of the message (a postal address, a telephone number, an email mailbox), and "public" that which is accessible to unidentified correspondants. Even if this distinction is not relevant (as in the case of collective addresses provided by servers) it would be hypocritical to believe that the Internet can be seen simply as a medium of private communication, comparable to the telephone. The public or private character of communication no longer may be determined by the nature of the media used, nor by the nature of its services (discussion, news... ), but must be defined by the nature of the relationship between the correspondents. II. The creation of an "observatory" Since each distributor, or librarian, cannot supervise all of the information placed at the disposition of the public, the existence of an authority of reference, able to designate messages which are objectionable or presumed to be so to me seems necessary, as much from the point of view of the distributors as from that of the users who today have to resort to the courts to attack a service which they believe to be prejudiced against them. This authority would collect complaints and, after an official legal inquiry to verify their good faith, simply announce its findings about the services in question to the distributors. Each distributor, having been put on notice, then would have the freedom to continue or to suppress these services, a suppression which apparently is technically possible. This solution presents many advantages. It is said often that it is necessary to defer to international standards. Apart from the fact that this is unrealistic, it is extremely dangerous, because an international moral code does not yet exist, and a nation cannot allow itself to descend to the level of survival of the strongest. The limits of pornography, for example, or those of the usage of drugs, are quite variable from one country to another; and anti - negationnist laws do not exist everywhere. It is therefore best to act at the national level. But it also is true that a national law would have no effect since the Networks ignore frontiers. By leaving the responsibility for the distribution with the distributors themselves, country by country, one adopts a non - authoritarian attitude that, at least, "limits the damage" and to which everyone must adapt in taking on his particular responsibilities. This solution also poses several legal problems. Is it legally possible that distributors would have to submit to control only "a posteriori", and would not have to worry except in the case in which they diffused information which might later be designated objectionable by the authority of reference? This is what seems just, in this situation, but might it perhaps have some opposite effects? Legal scholars must respond. What legal agency would have this authority of observation? In my opinion it ought not to have judicial power: one must leave to judges the task of judging. Can it have, however, in certain flagrant cases (but how to define these?) an immediate power to suspend, as there is in "jugements en re'fe're'"*, so as to avoid the too - long delays between the designation of a suspect service and its suppression which would result from leaving things to the good will of the distributors? [*"order in chambers": an interim judicial order, issued to prevent abuse / injustice while awaiting a formal decision. JK.] We are speaking, therefore, of an independent instance (and how to assure that independence?), working within the body of French legislation. There is a "bureau of advertising review", an independent office of great value and efficiency, which acts as a sort of "forum of last resort" for determining that which might be fraudulent in an ad. Might this be comparable? [Next, in Part 2, "identifying the messenger?", and some of the "de'bat" for which the French are justly famous.] XXX FYI France (sm)(tm) e - newsletter ISSN 1071 - 5916 * | FYI France (sm)(tm) is a monthly electronic newsletter, | published since 1992 as a small - scale, personal, | experiment, in the creation of large - scale | "information overload", by Jack Kessler. Any material / \ written by me which appears in FYI France may be ----- copied and used by anyone for any good purpose, so // \\ long as, a) they give me credit and show my e - mail --------- address and, b) it isn't going to make them money: if // \\ if it is going to make them money, they must get my permission in advance, and share some of the money which they get with me. Use of material written by others requires their permission. FYI France archives are online at http://infolib.berkeley.edu (search for FYIFrance), or via gopher to infolib.berkeley.edu 72 (path: 3. Electronic Journals (Library-Oriented)/ 6. FYIFrance/ or http://www.univ-rennes1.fr/LISTES/biblio-fr@univ-rennes1.fr/ (BIBLIO-FR econference archive), or gopher.well.sf.ca.us , or via telnet to a.cni.org , login brsuser (PACS / PACS-L econference archive). Suggestions, reactions, criticisms, praise, and poison - pen letters all will be gratefully received at kessler@well.sf.ca.us . Copyright 1992- by Jack Kessler, all rights reserved.