*shrug* If Karl's latest windmill attack adversely affects anyone (via leaking cancels), I suspect folks will quickly find out who's feeding him and make it stop. This will be about as effective as his empty threat to somehow get Playboy to punish folks who posted copyrighted images. I believe someone went so far as to post images with their own PGP signature to call his bluff and nothing ever happened. It's unfortunate that someone with such a long history and undoubtedly a wealth of experience chooses to spend their time in these fruitless endeavors rather than using that energy for something useful. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Alan Spicer To: Karl Denninger; jgarzik@pobox.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: 11/14/98 1:10 PM Subject: Re: Hold on to your news servers It sounds like you want to censor UseNet and you want to be the god that gets to do that. I think UseNet will survive you as it has survived everyone else. Everyone will OPT you OUT. I'm curious of several things. 1.) Did you consult any Internet standards group or organization about your plan for UseNet? 2.) What is your motivation political or profit? Or do you answer to a higher authority? At 07:25 PM 11/13/98 -0600, you wrote:
Oh, those who want to try to sink this with public opinion (won't work; anyone who's known me for more than a day knows how much I count that in my evaluations) don't have to bother telling the truth.
- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so
give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
On Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 06:00:15PM -0700, John M. Brown wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually quoted things correctly....
Quoting from his FAQ as posted on inet-access.
" THIS CANCEL ADVISORY SYSTEM IS OPT-IN; THE CANCELS WILL *NOT* BE GENERALLY INJECTED BACK INTO THE USENET NEWS STREAM. "
/------------------------------------------------\ | Alan Spicer (tech@ebiznet.com) NIC:AGS14 | | Systems Analyst / Administrator / Tech Support | | | | www.ebiznet.com | www.websgreatesthits.com | \------------------------------------------------/
In the immortal words of Chris Mauritz (chrism@raremedium.com):
If Karl's latest windmill attack adversely affects anyone (via leaking cancels), I suspect folks will quickly find out who's feeding him and make it stop. This will be about as effective as his empty threat to somehow get Playboy to punish folks who posted copyrighted images.
Although Karl's involvement is highly debatable, Playboy Enterprises International has and continues to send Cease and Desist letters and file actual lawsuits against people posting their images on both Usenet and the web. Ditto Penthouse Productions, Flynt Publishing, IEG Entertainment and pretty much everybody else in the business. The pissing and moaning about the CleanNews cancels getting leaked strikes me as a non-issue. Most major news transit sites use Highwind's Cyclone, which can filter out the CleanNews cancels before they get sent to your site, often without you having to even contact your provider if they're using the CGI interface. And if things leak regardless, well, the leaks will get plugged. ClariNet has gotten used as an example of the supposed impossibility of doing this, but last I checked they were still in business... If there is any actual operational relevance to this discussion, it is this: does accepting a CleanNews feed actually, as Karl suggest, provide any legal protection to the subscriber site when dealing with accusations of transiting illegal or copyrighted material? I strongly suspect that the answer is "Not even slightly", and urge that ISP news administrators talk long and hard with their corporate counsel before implementing this. It is possible, depending on whether you present yourself as a carrier service, that this could even increase your liability. (IANAL, and really all I'm sayin here is that neither is Karl, and you should talk to somebody who is.) -n ------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org> Like an exterminator running low on dust, I'm / bug-powder itchin' and I can't be trusted. (--Bomb The Bass) <http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------
On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 05:15:05PM -0500, Nathan J. Mehl wrote:
If there is any actual operational relevance to this discussion, it is this: does accepting a CleanNews feed actually, as Karl suggest, provide any legal protection to the subscriber site when dealing with accusations of transiting illegal or copyrighted material? I strongly suspect that the answer is "Not even slightly", and urge that ISP news administrators talk long and hard with their corporate counsel before implementing this. It is possible, depending on whether you present yourself as a carrier service, that this could even increase your liability.
Uh, no. Usenet is NOT a carrier service. Its just not. You can try to claim that it is, but I suspect that we'll find out shortly whether there is any chance in hell of that succeeding - coming out of New York State. One key when talking to lawyers, though, is to tell them the truth about what you do and what you need to do in order to implement something. Its very easy to get your shorts in a knot if you play coy with your counsel. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
[I think we've pretty much exhausted the 2cc worth of operational relevance that this had; this will be my last post to nanog on the subject.] In the immortal words of Karl Denninger (karl@Denninger.Net):
Uh, no. Usenet is NOT a carrier service. Its just not.
Well, so you've been asserting for many years now. (I seem to recall first having this argument with you on news.admin.misc circa 1993.) My under- standing of the case law surrounding the issue suggests that it's a bit less cut and dried than that, but YMMV.
You can try to claim that it is, but I suspect that we'll find out shortly whether there is any chance in hell of that succeeding - coming out of New York State.
Funny thing that -- I would actually have pointed to the Vacco prosecutions as a primary example of why putting one's trust in CleanNews as a legal umbrella might not be the best idea. From all accounts, the two ISPs Vacco shut down in New York were making all of the usual efforts to cooperate in good faith with Vacco's office. Unfortunately for them, it was an election year and Vacco was in a tight (indeed, still undecided) race, so he decided to play the "Internet child porn scare" card and raided them anyways: http://www.buffnet.net/ag/ Moral: acting in "good faith" is...an act of faith. It's no substitute for concrete legal protections. [Full disclosure: I am a resident of New York State with a profound and repeatedly stated dislike for Vacco. The man is scum, and you can quote me on that.]
One key when talking to lawyers, though, is to tell them the truth about what you do and what you need to do in order to implement something. Its very easy to get your shorts in a knot if you play coy with your counsel.
Agreed and emphasized. -n ------------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org> "Sure, the left would love to have a Christian Coalition. The tiny problem is that it doesn't have Christianity." (--James Poniewozik) <http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 16, 1998 at 11:45:21AM -0500, Nathan J. Mehl wrote:
You can try to claim that it is, but I suspect that we'll find out shortly whether there is any chance in hell of that succeeding - coming out of New York State.
Funny thing that -- I would actually have pointed to the Vacco prosecutions as a primary example of why putting one's trust in CleanNews as a legal umbrella might not be the best idea. From all accounts, the two ISPs Vacco shut down in New York were making all of the usual efforts to cooperate in good faith with Vacco's office.
Uh, no. The reports I've read say that Vacco's office sent them a notice (from an undercover account) that they had the porn on their servers along with where it was, and asked for a response. They sent this to several ISPs (not just the two which were seized). Others pulled the groups. The two that were seized didn't, but they DID respond (negatively) to the request. I suspect this is an issue for the courts to sort out - did they or did they not have constructive notice of what was there. REGARDLESS, I would argue that acceptnig a *group* which by its name denotes illegal activity is begging for trouble. If I can see from nothing more than a FreeAgent group list as a user on your system that you're carrying groups which by their name denote illegal activity I think you've got a problem.
Unfortunately for them, it was an election year and Vacco was in a tight (indeed, still undecided) race, so he decided to play the "Internet child porn scare" card and raided them anyways: http://www.buffnet.net/ag/
Do you know if Buffnet is being completely truthful in that page? I don't.
Moral: acting in "good faith" is...an act of faith. It's no substitute for concrete legal protections.
Actually, I have spoken to the NYAG's office. They have indicated to me that if an ISP were accepting such a feed, they would not even consider prosecuting them for this kind of thing. They obviously decline to provide *blanket* immunity (what if the poster is on YOUR MACHINE?!) - good faith is as far as you're going to get when it comes to general protections against prosecutorial intervention.
[Full disclosure: I am a resident of New York State with a profound and repeatedly stated dislike for Vacco. The man is scum, and you can quote me on that.]
One key when talking to lawyers, though, is to tell them the truth about what you do and what you need to do in order to implement something. Its very easy to get your shorts in a knot if you play coy with your counsel.
Agreed and emphasized.
Yep. Like admitting that news server software comes with *zero* configuration out of the box, and that you have to *explicitly* set up the groups you accept and who you peer with (even if the list is "*") -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.
participants (3)
-
Chris Mauritz -
Karl Denninger -
Nathan J. Mehl