Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes... Regards Marshall Eubanks ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> ----- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech@politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/ http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file trading. A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political effort to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom line. Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the 10-page bill this week. The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network." Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit, and a suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250. According to the draft, the attorney general must be given complete details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder intends to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer network. Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public. The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
Would malicious actions on the part of copyright holders violate the AUP of most networks? Or are service providers more willing to tolerate denial of service attacks by large corporations than say, spam? If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine. Regards, James Thomason On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech@politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech
Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT
WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political effort to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom line.
Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the 10-page bill this week.
The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network."
Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit, and a suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250.
According to the draft, the attorney general must be given complete details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder intends to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer network. Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public.
The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Regards Marshall Eubanks
T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com
Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
I second that. If I see any of my clients having any sort of malicious activity directed at them, then there is no chance of me allowing their traffic through. I would be more than happy to send all their traffic to packet hell. Large corporations do not get any special consideration if it comes down to the stability of my network vs. receiving their traffic. Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of James Thomason Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:10 PM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking Would malicious actions on the part of copyright holders violate the AUP of most networks? Or are service providers more willing to tolerate denial of service attacks by large corporations than say, spam? If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine. Regards, James Thomason On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech@politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech
Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT
WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to
disable
PCs used for illicit file trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political
effort
to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their
bottom
line.
Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble,
R-N.C.,
the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly
unchecked
electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe
that
piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the
10-page
bill this week.
The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network."
Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit,
and a
suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250.
According to the draft, the attorney general must be given
complete
details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder
intends
to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer
network.
Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public.
The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would
be
permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion
to
sue if files are accidentally erased.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Regards Marshall Eubanks
T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com
Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
Agreed here. Has this even got a bill number yet? On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 13:15, Derek Samford wrote:
I second that. If I see any of my clients having any sort of malicious activity directed at them, then there is no chance of me allowing their traffic through. I would be more than happy to send all their traffic to packet hell. Large corporations do not get any special consideration if it comes down to the stability of my network vs. receiving their traffic.
Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of James Thomason Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:10 PM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Would malicious actions on the part of copyright holders violate the AUP of most networks? Or are service providers more willing to tolerate denial of service attacks by large corporations than say, spam?
If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine.
Regards, James Thomason
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech@politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech
Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT
WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to
disable
PCs used for illicit file trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political
effort
to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their
bottom
line.
Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble,
R-N.C.,
the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly
unchecked
electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe
that
piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the
10-page
bill this week.
The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network."
Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit,
and a
suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250.
According to the draft, the attorney general must be given
complete
details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder
intends
to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer
network.
Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public.
The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would
be
permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion
to
sue if files are accidentally erased.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Regards Marshall Eubanks
T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com
Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
If it starts happening, just unplug whoever's doing it and treat them like a DDOSer...poof, you just lost your Internet connectivity. Something Sony or MCA would love to have happen...huh? Sorry, your'e causing malicious problems on the Internet, operational procedure requires us to disable your address block..click... What these slugs in Kongress don't realize, this will trigger a war, and one they can not win... Who are they going to give waivers to, to damage personal property next, the ACLU, the ADL, the eco-terrorists? the politically korrect? This is a war they can not hope to win, and all it will do is create chaos on the Internet, chaos that WE will bear the brunt of...like there isn't enough problems now? All this because the media leeches won't recognize they have been trumped by technology...pitu! At 14:15 7/24/02 -0400, you wrote:
I second that. If I see any of my clients having any sort of malicious activity directed at them, then there is no chance of me allowing their traffic through. I would be more than happy to send all their traffic to packet hell. Large corporations do not get any special consideration if it comes down to the stability of my network vs. receiving their traffic.
Derek -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of James Thomason Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:10 PM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Would malicious actions on the part of copyright holders violate the AUP of most networks? Or are service providers more willing to tolerate denial of service attacks by large corporations than say, spam?
If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine.
Regards, James Thomason
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech@politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech
Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT
WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to
disable
PCs used for illicit file trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political
effort
to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their
bottom
line.
Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble,
R-N.C.,
the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly
unchecked
electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe
that
piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the
10-page
bill this week.
The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network."
Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit,
and a
suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250.
According to the draft, the attorney general must be given
complete
details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder
intends
to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer
network.
Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public.
The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would
be
permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion
to
sue if files are accidentally erased.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
----- End forwarded message -----
-- Regards Marshall Eubanks
T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com
Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
On 2002-07-24-14:10:00, James Thomason <james@divide.org> wrote:
If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine.
Unless, of course, the RIAA, MPAA, and friends carry out their cracking through throw-away dial and DSL accounts, like they purportedly use now to troll for copyright offenders, and send automated nasty-grams to their upstream providers. Carrying out their cracking from a uniform netblock or AS, which we could all identify and filter, would be too easy. They're flagrant, but they're not stupid. -a
On 7/24/02 11:31 AM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr@asr.org> wrote:
On 2002-07-24-14:10:00, James Thomason <james@divide.org> wrote:
If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine.
Unless, of course, the RIAA, MPAA, and friends carry out their cracking through throw-away dial and DSL accounts, like they purportedly use now to troll for copyright offenders, and send automated nasty-grams to their upstream providers.
Carrying out their cracking from a uniform netblock or AS, which we could all identify and filter, would be too easy. They're flagrant, but they're not stupid.
The Business Software Alliance appears to be using this technique to flush out people distributing their Members' software via Gnutella and others. I have received the obligatory nasty-gram advising me as the "owner" of an IP (not taking into account the IP has been allocated and then assigned to consecutive downstream providers) that I could be held liable for the actions of this particular user. Mike
The BSA is even flexing it's muscles here in the GWN. http://www.istop.com/BSALetter.txt Although they seem to have lots of money for scanning services and lawyers, they expect ISPs to provide services (assisting them enforce their copyrights) for free. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com
The Business Software Alliance appears to be using this technique to flush out people distributing their Members' software via Gnutella and others. I have received the obligatory nasty-gram advising me as the "owner" of an IP (not taking into account the IP has been allocated and then assigned to consecutive downstream providers) that I could be held liable for the actions of this particular user.
The BSA is definately scanning P2P networks for alleged copyright infringements. I received several of a similar notice for my netblocks. This earned the BSA a null-route (not that they would care). Although this complaint was not for a system of our own, I do own both of the software programs cited in the complaint. After receiving legal threats, I wonder if I will give my $150 to Intuit next year, or a local accountant. --- snip --- Where the infringing content was located: ------------------------------ First Found: [Time First Seen] Last Found: [Time Last Seen] Network: Gnucleus Repeat Offenses: [Number of Tiems Seen] IP Address: [X.X.X.X] Protocol: Gnutella What was located as infringing content: ------------------------------ Filename: turbotax premier 2001.zip (33,006kb) Filename: quickbooks pro 2002 + key(1).zip (147,505kb) John R. Wolfe Manager of Investigations Business Software Alliance 1150 18th St NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 URL: http://www.bsa.org E-mail: copyright@bsa.org 1-888-667-4722 --- snip --- Regards, James Thomason
Mike
The upside to this is that if you are a hacker, you can now legitimize your activities and legally protect yourself by spending $30 to incorporate as a record company. On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:40:51 -0400 From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking To: politech@politechbot.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:29:35 -0400 X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/ X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html?tag=politech
Could Hollywood hack your PC? By Declan McCullagh July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT
WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest political effort to date by record labels and movie studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom line.
Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C., the measure would permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to introduce the 10-page bill this week.
The legislation would immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal laws if they disable, block or otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer network."
Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general before filing a lawsuit, and a suit could be filed only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250.
According to the draft, the attorney general must be given complete details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder intends to use to impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer network. Those details would remain secret and would not be divulged to the public.
The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- End forwarded message -----
Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> writes:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
The courts. There is no possible way that this bill (as I read it) could, in any way, be conceived as even remotely constitutional. This is pure vigilante: the entertainment thugs aren't the police and don't have the rights or authority to do anything other than report abuses to the *proper* authorities. Peace, Petr
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:48:36 EDT, Petr Swedock said:
The courts. There is no possible way that this bill (as I read it) could, in any way, be conceived as even remotely constitutional. This is pure vigilante: the entertainment
The fact that a law is unconstitutional on the face of it has rarely stopped it in the past - that's why the courts have the authority to throw out bad laws. Unfortunately, we better be ready for several years of pain while a test case makes it way up the judicial pecking order...
I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed. --On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
-- Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net "... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." -- Presidential Oath of Office
Off topic a bit, I'll shut up after this ... all follow ups to /dev/null. This only applies to US citizens ... To follow up on the private responses "IV does not apply to companies". In the case of stolen copyright material being stored within the home; no one has the right to enter a home unless they are accompanied by a government official with a warrant. If my neighbor steals something from me I have no right to go into that person's house and take or destroy the stolen item. I am required by common and civil law to ask the local law enforcement agency to act on my behalf. That officer must abide by the constitution. A warrant must be issued. A judge must have due cause to issue the warrant. The Internet is no different than the sidewalk leading to my house. I do not need to have my door locked or have a fence to be protected *by the law* from trespassers. Note ... I suggest reading the caselaw sources for the 4th amendment. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=116&invol=616#626 "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of the common law." --On Thursday, 25 July 2002 19:15 +0000 "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net> wrote:
I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed.
--On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
-- Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net "... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." -- Presidential Oath of Office
Private individuals are not necessarily bound by the 4th amendment. A good example are bail agents (i.e. Bounty hunters). Look it up - they can do warrantless searches and entries in some states. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Joseph T. Klein Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:14 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Off topic a bit, I'll shut up after this ... all follow ups to /dev/null.
This only applies to US citizens ...
To follow up on the private responses "IV does not apply to companies".
In the case of stolen copyright material being stored within the home; no one has the right to enter a home unless they are accompanied by a government official with a warrant.
If my neighbor steals something from me I have no right to go into that person's house and take or destroy the stolen item.
I am required by common and civil law to ask the local law enforcement agency to act on my behalf. That officer must abide by the constitution. A warrant must be issued. A judge must have due cause to issue the warrant.
The Internet is no different than the sidewalk leading to my house. I do not need to have my door locked or have a fence to be protected *by the law* from trespassers.
Note ... I suggest reading the caselaw sources for the 4th amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court= us&vol=116&invol=616#626
"By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of the common law." --On Thursday, 25 July 2002 19:15 +0000 "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net> wrote:
I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed.
--On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
-- Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net "... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." -- Presidential Oath of Office
Apples and oranges. They can only do so after someone has failed to appear for a court hearing, and generally if bench warrant has been issued for their detainment and return. They are able to make exigent circumstances searches when they have reason to believe their target is in a location and likely to not be there when they return with law enforcement and a search warrant. They're also required to be licensed and post a bond in many states, and aren't allowed to operate in some other states; they are not controlled by federal law. In most states such arrests are only empowered after a bail contract has been entered into; i.e. I can't just arrest you because you're skipping out on an appearance, I have to have been your bail bondsman or contracted by him. Interesting counterexample, though. On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:25:59AM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
Private individuals are not necessarily bound by the 4th amendment. A good example are bail agents (i.e. Bounty hunters). Look it up - they can do warrantless searches and entries in some states.
- Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Joseph T. Klein Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:14 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Off topic a bit, I'll shut up after this ... all follow ups to /dev/null.
This only applies to US citizens ...
To follow up on the private responses "IV does not apply to companies".
In the case of stolen copyright material being stored within the home; no one has the right to enter a home unless they are accompanied by a government official with a warrant.
If my neighbor steals something from me I have no right to go into that person's house and take or destroy the stolen item.
I am required by common and civil law to ask the local law enforcement agency to act on my behalf. That officer must abide by the constitution. A warrant must be issued. A judge must have due cause to issue the warrant.
The Internet is no different than the sidewalk leading to my house. I do not need to have my door locked or have a fence to be protected *by the law* from trespassers.
Note ... I suggest reading the caselaw sources for the 4th amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court= us&vol=116&invol=616#626
"By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of the common law."
--On Thursday, 25 July 2002 19:15 +0000 "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net> wrote:
I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed.
--On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
-- Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net
"... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." -- Presidential Oath of Office
-- David Terrell | Step 1: "configure one system using your GUI" dbt@meat.net | Step 2: "now configure 1000 more" Nebcorp Prime Minister | - Casper H.S. Dik http://wwn.nebcorp.com |
participants (14)
-
Adam Rothschild -
blitz -
Daniel Golding -
David Terrell -
Derek Samford -
James Thomason -
Joseph T. Klein -
Larry Rosenman -
Marshall Eubanks -
Michael Smith -
Pete Kruckenberg -
Petr Swedock -
Ralph Doncaster -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu