However, I must question whether the activity Dean discusses is actually criminal. He does not accuse them of carrying out the attacks, he accuses them of transporting information published by a third party which notifies the world that his site is vulnerable to these attacks. Since Dean has published information to NANOG and other public forums stating that: 1. His sites _ARE_ vulnerable. 2. He has no willingness to fix these vulnerabilities. 3. He intends to make the internet at large responsible for his negligence WRT these sites. I seriously doubt that publishing a list of known public-nuissances is genuinely illegal. Further, unless Dean has presented netgate with a court-order showing that the court has indeed found said activity to be illegal, I think they would be negligent in turning off said service. How would you like it if your ISP shut you down because I complained to them that you were sending out messages that contained information that was publicly available, but which I didn't want published? That's what Dean's really saying. Owen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08-Jan-2000 William Allen Simpson wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
I would like to get your opinions on this.
My opinion is that you should sue them vigorously -- and lose. This would help the rest of us immensely by providing a solid precedent for common carrier liability regarding the activities of our subscribers.
Every law I have seen limits common carrier liability exemption when the carrier has knowledge of the illegal activity. It is only protection when the carrier is not aware of the activity.
- -- William X. Walsh <william@dso.net> DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks
iD8DBQE4drtE8zLmV94Pz+IRAvBTAKDD9O9amegIE65UJ1Lj2htV44EurwCgrTaN Ua63qpzcXJK//Rs1PuRDfPc= =Xy8H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----