Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
Stephen - my responses in caps - -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> these
laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests.
If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too? THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE - I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT. No. If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too? DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU. No. BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND - THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS, MY TAKE IS THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON. ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE... Common carrier status exists for this very reason. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3 OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY - Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" - TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG. see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago. I KNOW - I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking