...

If you're not a provider of wire communication services according to the definitions, they don't apply.

If anyone still cares, 18 USC 2510 defines the term, and it means a phone company, not an ISP. Enough already.

Well, like I said, if it doesn't apply to you, don't worry. I didn't make the laws, and I am not a prosecutor. You have to make your own decisions after reading the material. But if you *actually* read the definitions in 2510, you will see it defines the term "electronic communications" to mean: (12) "electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include - (A) any wire or oral communication; (B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device; or (C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); Then it says what an electronic communications system is: (14) "electronic communications system" means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications; Then 2511 says: (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who - (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; Then from Websters Dictionary, "intercept" means:

Intercept \In`ter*cept"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Intercepted; p. pr. & vb. n. Intercepting.] [L. interceptus, p. p. of intercipere to intercept; inter between + capere to take, seize: cf. F. intercepter. See Capable.] 1. To take or seize by the way, or before arrival at the destined place; to cause to stop on the passage; as, to intercept a letter; a telegram will intercept him at Paris. God will shortly intercept your breath. --Joye. 2. To obstruct or interrupt the progress of; to stop; to hinder or oppose; as, to intercept the current of a river. Who intercepts me in my expedition? --Shak. We must meet first, and intercept his course. --Dryden. 3. To interrupt communication with, or progress toward; to cut off, as the destination; to blockade. While storms vindictive intercept the shore. >--Pope.

Seems like "blocking IP packets" is "interception" And what part of "signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature" excludes IP packets? (the intelligence part of course ;-) It would seem that if ones job is to transport packets from peers which they have peering agreements with, and they don't do it for a political reason, this would apply. Doesn't seem like it only applies to telephone companies. But hey, I could be wrong, and some people seem to be very unsettled by this discussion, so perhaps we should drop it. It's way off my original point about smurfing and spam and the FBI's apparent lack of interest in pursuing DoS cases. But my point about the anti-spammer crowd has certainly been made more eloquently by actions than words could ever describe. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dean Anderson writes: Is not supprising. What I'm supprised by is the continued and balatant off topic posting by

In message <199801230102.UAA00928@penny.n2wx.ampr.org>, Howard Goldstein writes : this "Dead Anderson" character. I added him to my .procmailrc a long time ago. I'm am also a little supprised that UUnet providers services to this person that advocates breaking their service agreement. My guess is they haven't been able to document his spamming, yet. Maybe with any luck he'll show up at the next nanog meeting and be suprised in a dark alley. I tend to find spammers and spam supporteds to be of such low moral character that they don't have they courage to stand up supporting it in public. traceroute to www1.av8.com (198.3.136.144), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 5 112.Hssi9-0-0.CR2.BOS1.Alter.Net (137.39.58.142) 57.679 ms 59.247 ms 56.877 ms 6 412.atm11-0-0.gw2.bos1.alter.net (137.39.13.249) 58.829 ms 58.316 ms 59.978 ms 7 oec-gw.customer.ALTER.NET (157.130.1.158) 61.622 ms 60.547 ms 60.779 ms 8 * www.av8.com (198.3.136.144) 64.607 ms 60.682 ms --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net

On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 07:19:54PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:

I presume you mean cases where this law has been applied. I will look that up. But even if there were no cases, the law can still be applied to the first person caught violating them.

But there have been court cases cited that prove that you're wrong. Compuserve v. Cyber Promotions, for example. Or any of the AOL victories.

I'm starting to feel like I have to seek out some spammers and help them collect evidence for a crimminal complaint, in order to defend my honor, or at least my sanity from claims to the contrary.

If you feel you have to. Whatever.

Perhaps those network providers who think (and flame) that it can't

People flame you because no matter what evidence is provided to you you insist you're right. As another Nanog reader mentioned, there is no point in talking to you because in your opinion, apparently everyone else is *automatically* wrong. You do nothing for your reputation, Dean, and in fact end up sounding like a complete idiot.

possibly apply to their actual blocking, will send me the names and netblocks of the spammers they are blocking. They should write that the blocked packets are coming from a peer for which they have a peering agreement with, and would otherwise be expected to transport those packets to their destinations.

But in many, many cases, LIKE MINE, that's not the case! Why do you automatically assume that?

Write that the packets are blocked because they are sent from spammers and contain spam. Or just write that they are blocked for an arbitrary reason. I'll take the evidence and get a crimminal complaint, thus either proving the application of the law. Or disproving it, beyond mere speculation. "Put up or shut up", as it were.

We're not blocking spammers at this point, Dean, so I can't really say anything. Except that the aforementioned court cases say that the OWNERS OF THE SERVERS HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT SAID SERVERS FROM MISUSE.

I would also point out that the definition of "intercept" in 2510 is substantially *looser* than the dictionary definition. Just reading and passing it on qualifies as an "intercept" according to 2510. You don't actually have to block it to be intercepting according to the law. You're making my point, while trying to disagree.

Well then, why hasn't every single person running an Internet-connected computer been thrown in jail? Because -- the routers between point a and point b on the Net MUST LOOK AT THE PACKETS to determine where to route them.

I might be wrong, but no one has yet given an explanation of how this law doesn't apply. Claims that it only applies to phone companies seem to definitely be wrong. But there is one way to find out for sure whether it applies to anti-spammer network providers.

So go sue someone. Prove my point.

I'm not a spammer. Nor am I an anti-spammer. I'm for law and order; Laws that apply equally to everyone, and can't be violated without punishment when it suits some private purpose or agenda.

I agree with you that this should be the case. I do not agree that laws are being violated.

I claim that crimminals are of low moral fibre, and I'm willing to test who the crimminals really are. I'll expect my postal mailbox to be full next week: P.O. Box 7286, Nashua, NH 03060. I expect to find letters from the flamers.

As I said, Dean, you are flamed because you have been presented with evidence, and have completely ignored it, instead trying to push your point home. That's why you're flamed, not for your opinions. And how do I know this? Because people have said it both on NANOG and in private e-mail to me. I'd flip you a quarter and tell you to go buy a clue, but in order to afford all the clues you need, you'd probably have to have a net worth close to that of Bill Gates. -- Steve Sobol - sjsobol@nacs.net NACS FAQ: http://www.nacs.net/support/faq Maintainer of the NACS.NET Tech Support Site at http://www.nacs.net/support DNS guy, Postmaster, "Web Dude", and AUP Person/Spaminator (T.I.N.C.) 128K ISDN. Flat rate. $37.50 per month. You know you want it, so why don't you call me? 216 619-2000, 1-888-273-NACS. "Operators are standing by!" :)

Dean Anderson writes:

I might be wrong, but no one has yet given an explanation of how this law doesn't apply.

Fair point. Here's how I analyze it for my own use [1]: The bad act is the interception of a communication by persons not parties thereto, and by those who are not necessary for the communication. "Interception" is defined in the wiretap act as the acquisition of the communication's "contents" (a term of art, also defined). In order for there to be a prohibited interception, one must have acquired the substance of another's communications, i.e., the "contents." s2511(1) Yet the kind of blocking most of us contemplate (blackhole route, sendmail check_[mail|relay], and the like) when "blocking" is brought up inhibits acquisition of the contents. There is no violation if no "contents" are acquired. The wiretap act is intended to protect proprietary rights in message content from another's wrongful taking. There's no indication anywhere of intent to gaurantee a level of service for content's transmission. I find it somewhat reassuring that those desperate spammers who have litigated related matters haven't attempted recovery through the civil remedy provided by s2520. Don't you agree that they would have tried if the theory had even a tiny bit of merit? -- [1] In other words, this is not legal advice, and I do not represent anyone on this list -- no one here has paid me. Consult your own attorney before taking or refraining from taking any action regarding the subject matter discussed herein.

Yes that is a valid point but if a client of yours gets such unsolicited email then the contents forwarded to you are fair game in the interception and your methods can then interdict and block the rout from the spam soure based on valid complaint from the client. Make this part of the policy statement to your clients encouraging them to forward and complain about unsolicited email... Henry R. Linneweh Dean Anderson wrote:

At 11:42 PM -0500 1/23/98, Howard Goldstein wrote:

...

In order for there to be a prohibited interception, one must have acquired the substance of another's communications, i.e., the "contents." s2511(1)

This is a good point. I'm not sure I buy it, but it at least is a reasonable point. It seems to me that the change of definition was to loosen the meaning of intercept so that one doesn't have to actually block to be in violation, rather than to require reading of the contents for there to be a violation, as you interpret.

...

The wiretap act is intended to protect proprietary rights in message content from another's wrongful taking. There's no indication anywhere of intent to gaurantee a level of service for content's transmission.

I don't think anyone would expect you to guarantee a level of service. But it is not unreasonable to expect that you are not arbitrarilly and capriciously discrimminating against people who reasonably expect you to pass their packets. This goes far beyond spamming. Consider what might happen if it actually is permissible for people to arbitrarilly blackhole another person or company, at a whim. Suppose Microsoft decides to take out Netscape during a dispute. Etc. Such behavior is already illegal, given my interpretation. I am looking forward to having people send me those letters, so we can test this.

...

I find it somewhat reassuring that those desperate spammers who have litigated related matters haven't attempted recovery through the civil remedy provided by s2520. Don't you agree that they would have tried if the theory had even a tiny bit of merit?

You have to know about it. It appears the spammers aren't very good at getting good lawyers so far, considering how they phrased their cases so far. But the civil damages aren't much, either.

--Dean

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- ™
¢4i1å