nanog mailing list archives
RE: AOL holes again.
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:55:05 -0800
From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids () webmaster com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 2:03 AMThat's a preposterous interpretation. 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(i) says: It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator
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.You may have a very hard time convincing anyone that rejecting significant amounts of legitimate mail is necessary. Necessity is a requirement for exemption under this section.
But, it would be trivial to claim exemption by contractual agreement. Read the AOL TOS please. There are clauses in there that specifically allow AOL to monitor, modify, or delete email messages at-will. Back in the old days, AOL actually had volunteers going through their message-base, regularly, monitoring and deleting content that didn't meet AOL criteria.
Current thread:
- RE: AOL holes again., (continued)
- RE: AOL holes again. jlewis (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Alan Clegg (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. James M. Shuler III (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Wayne (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. jlewis (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 20)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 20)
- RE: AOL holes again. David Schwartz (Mar 21)
- RE: AOL holes again. Dan Hollis (Mar 21)
- Re: AOL holes again. Matt Levine (Mar 21)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 21)
- Re: AOL holes again. Shawn McMahon (Mar 21)
- Re: AOL holes again. Steve Sobol (Mar 21)