Owen DeLong in private communication points up that he thinks that this permission is transitive. That has the problem that it trivially obviates all privacy. Every provider is automatically authorized, no one is not authorized. Privacy is in the eyes of the provider. The ECPA was intended to prevent communications providers from looking at things they shouldn't and don't need to. So I'm not convinced. **thanks to Dean Robb, the Attorneys manual says it must be "specifically authorized"
Apologies to the list for posting this, but I had to respond to this violation of my privacy and this slander. No, I didn't. I said that my AUP/TOS can create a transitive OBLIGATION to disclose on the part of the downstream providers. Further, I have repeatedly said that if the downstream providers can provide their service to spammers without violating my AUP/TOS, then there is no issue. However, if they deliver content to my network for transit which is in violation of my AUP/TOS, then I have the rights to defend my property from this theft of service. Owen