On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 at 18:44 PDT, Vadim Antonov <avg(a)quake.net> wrote:
>
> Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> wrote:
>
> >What if you are FlyBite Couriers Inc. and you have a parcel for Bigco
> >Inc's art department. The sign on the door at BigCo says "No deliveries,
> >go to the back door, this means you!". But you are to lazy so you walk in,
> >argue with the receptionist for a minute and dump your package on the
> >floor. She has to call in one of the mailroom people from the far end of
> >the building complex to deliver the package.
>
> Er. That situation may actually end up in court. Legally, the parcel
> is still in posession of FBC Inc. -- nobody signed the receipt and
> nobody left drop-shipment authorization. So sender of the packet
> has all reasons to sue FBC Inc.
>
> So, thank you for playing, but the analogy is somehow wrong.
>
> > It is not a "theft", it is more like trespassing. It is illegal and
> > covered by codes related to unauthorized use of equipment.
>
> FlyBite Couriers has caused Bigco to spend their own resources in order to
> deliver the package to teh art department. Is FlyBite Couriers guilty of
> theft? No. Are they guilty of trespass? I don't think so.
Actually, they *are* guilty of trespass! The owner has the right to
restrict some or all uses of a piece of property. BigCo clearly posted
that a particular use (delivery of packages) was banned on their
property. Legally, this would be no different than if they had posted
"no hunting" and would be enforced the same way. The fact that the
owner encourages the same activity on an adjacent property (at the back
of the building) is irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is suitability:
It doesn't matter that delivery in the lobby might seem preferable.
The analogy holds well enough that you could apply the same legal
remedies to unwanted delivery of network packets as you would for
physical trespass. Upon discovery, the "trespassed" party somehow
warns the offending party of their transgression in some sort of
well-documented way (grievance, cease-and-desist order, injunction).
Should the offending party repeat the action, you have evidence of
at least negligence and should have no problem pressing a suit in
an appropriate court.
All of this is void, of course, if there's some law or superceding
agreement that allows such deliveries, regardless of what is "posted".
I admit that I don't know what the NSF and various NAP hosts require
as far as peering at NAPs, but everything I've heard so far implies
that they don't require peering except in very specific circumstances.
> Analogy was wrong. They're guilty of fraud if you want legal definition.
> They promised sender to deliver parcel, took money and didn't.
I find the analogy was right, but they may also be guilty of fraud
depending upon the local legal definition of delivery. If so, it
could probably be prosecuted with or without an accompanying
trespass charge.
And, of course, your mileage may vary in an international or non-USA
situation.
> >This makes good sense too. However, there are always two sides to every
> >traffic engineeriung question...
>
> Exactly. That's why traffic engineering at IXPs is always is a matter
> of mutual agreement. Dumping packets at somebody is doing something
> without an agreement, ok?
Agreed.
> --vadim
--eric
Disclaimer: Of course I'm not an attorney, else the above advice would
have cost you plenty. :-)
Eric P. Sobocinski | Internet: sobo(a)merit.net | 1075 Beal #2220
Merit Computer Network | or sobo(a)merit.edu | Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112
Hardware Engineering | | 1.313.763.4895 (USA)
