Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
At 04:48 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
This has been ssoooooooo hashed out here, with the general consensus being that 18 USC 2511 was inapplicable to blocking email.
It has been hashed out before. But the general consensus is not that 2511 is inapplicable. Initially, a number of people thought so. But they were wrong. 2511 was amended by Congress specifically to make it apply to email. How quickly some forget...
Also listed is the definition of "intercept", which is to acquire the contents of a communication (blocking/filtering clearly fails here).
You begin to aquire the packet as soon as the first bit of the version number is received. You are permitted to do things that are necessary incident to rendition of service. You can receive it into memory. You can route it. That doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. What you do needs to qualify as "necessary incident to rendition of service". Unless you are specifically authorized to do otherwise.
We can also see that monitering to improve service or "...protection of the rights or property of the carrier..." is specifically permitted.
Yup. If you're at a NAP for example, and someone starts tunneling through your network to another NAP to get transit service without paying transit fees, you can stop 'em.
So, if you're blocking email because you didn't give the spammer permission to use your systems, you're legal.
Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't claim the abuse clause. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 17:53 2/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
At 04:48 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
This has been ssoooooooo hashed out here, with the general consensus being that 18 USC 2511 was inapplicable to blocking email.
It has been hashed out before. But the general consensus is not that 2511 is inapplicable. Initially, a number of people thought so. But they were wrong.
Yeah, yeah. All wrong. In your mind. Not in the eyes of the law or anyone who matters.
2511 was amended by Congress specifically to make it apply to email.
Yup. It was specifically amended to make it illegal to open and read someone else's email without a warrant or compelling need. Too bad it doesn't apply to tracking or packet counting or anything else.
How quickly some forget...
Yes, how quickly they forget that you keep making this argument every few months with the same results: no agreement from anyone and no proof whatsoever.
Also listed is the definition of "intercept", which is to acquire the contents of a communication (blocking/filtering clearly fails here).
You begin to aquire the packet as soon as the first bit of the version number is received. You are permitted to do things that are necessary incident to rendition of service. You can receive it into memory. You can route it.
CONTENTS YOU FREAKING IDIOT!!! CONTENTS!!! I can collect packets from now till hell freezes with impugnity! When I READ those packets...SEE what the email says...THEN I break the law and not until. This is the part you just refuse to understand.
Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't claim the abuse clause.
Anti-spammers, the courts, various computer crime laws such as VA Code 18.2-152.6 .."Theft of computer services". What do you think AOL keeps winning those court cases based on? Theft of Service. If someone were to spam the crap out of you and fill your drives up with their spam and tie up all your phone lines, that's NOT theft of service? I wonder if your tone would change if it happened to you. No, don't bother to reply to me personally...I'll just kick myself for letting you out of the killfilter again and take more antacid. Facts and actual law don't sway your opinion. Microsoft Windows(tm): How much hair did you want to tear out today? Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 11:46:22PM -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
CONTENTS YOU FREAKING IDIOT!!! CONTENTS!!! I can collect packets from now till hell freezes with impugnity! When I READ those packets...SEE what the email says...THEN I break the law and not until. This is the part you just refuse to understand.
You can own a scanner that can listen to cellular frequencies. You can turn it on. But the second you turn it up enough to actually hear the conversation you are breaking federal law ;) -- Christopher M. Neill chris@verio.net http://www.verio.net/ *** Views express are mine and not nessecarily those of Verio, or of *** any sane individual, for that matter ;)
participants (3)
-
Christopher Neill -
Dean Anderson -
Dean Robb