Nanog is not a proper forum for spam discussion or spam announcements. A bunch of us on all sides of the issue agreed on this. Use spam-l or one of the other lists. In response, I get my one shot: (thanks) This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor. Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about their traffic. Its too late to take back your post. Think first. --Dean At 05:15 PM 2/1/1999 -0500, you wrote:
Just a heads up-
Down stream customer and end-user spammer norcal-systems.net via layer9.net started spamming yesterday afternoon. At first I was going to dismiss this and wait till Monday, but the complaints came in at a constant and fast pace.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor. Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about their traffic.
Interesting coroloary, Is it illegal for me to do flow-stats, as that examines packets (in the same way one would filter), causing this data to be stored on my flow stats server? - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 06:16:58PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 05:54:36PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor. Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about their traffic.
Interesting coroloary,
Is it illegal for me to do flow-stats, as that examines packets (in the same way one would filter), causing this data to be stored on my flow stats server?
For those of you playing at home, this document can be found at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.html This would appear to be covered in sec 18 USC 2511(2)(a) Then again, I'm no lawyer, and I really don't have the brain capacity to follow the threading of USC. I'm sorry if this was a boo boo move on my part. -r
At 06:39 PM 2/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
For those of you playing at home, this document can be found at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.html
This would appear to be covered in sec 18 USC 2511(2)(a)
Then again, I'm no lawyer, and I really don't have the brain capacity to follow the threading of USC.
I'm sorry if this was a boo boo move on my part.
(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. It would seem to me that blocking UCE to clients who have signed off on our policy of doing so would fall under the auspices of "normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service". ------------------------------------------------------------------ ML.ORG is gone. Check out http://www.EZ-IP.Net - It's *FREE* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your *FREE* Parked Domain account at http://www.EZ-Hosting.Com ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Fraizer | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation PGP Key fingerprint = 7DB6 1CA2 DAA6 43DA 3AAF 44CD 258C 3D7E B425 81A8
At 05:54 PM 2/1/99 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor. Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about their traffic.
What type of monitoring are you talking about? Or are you saying I cannot filter packets through my network as I please?
--Dean
TTFN, patrick I Am Not An Isp www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
What type of monitoring are you talking about? Or are you saying I cannot filter packets through my network as I please?
You havent been on nanog for very long, otherwise youd know that all your networks and all your packets belong to Dean, our resident pro-spam nut. -Dan
At 03:35 PM 2/1/99 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, I Am Not An Isp wrote:
What type of monitoring are you talking about? Or are you saying I cannot filter packets through my network as I please?
You havent been on nanog for very long, otherwise youd know that all your networks and all your packets belong to Dean, our resident pro-spam nut.
ACCCKKKK.... Sorry all. Watching presentations, not the "From" address. I'll stop responding while someone's talking. :p
-Dan
TTFN, patrick I Am Not An Isp www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
At 15:17 2/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 05:54 PM 2/1/99 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor. Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about their traffic.
What type of monitoring are you talking about? Or are you saying I cannot filter packets through my network as I please?
Of course you can. Dean likes to argue that any looking at, smelling of, blocking of, rerouting of, counting packets of, etc., data is wiretapping (the topic of 18 USC 2511). Microsoft Windows(tm): How much hair did you want to tear out today? Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
participants (7)
-
Dan Hollis -
Dean Anderson -
Dean Robb -
I Am Not An Isp -
Jared Mauch -
John Fraizer -
Ravi Pina