Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedence Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "lynn" <lynn () ecgincc com>
Date: November 29, 2008 11:49:01 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Editors note incl.  Dangerous Precedence Set -   
Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?

If you read the definitions:

(6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with
authorization and to use such access *to obtain or alter information in
the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;*

* mine

Note also the specific areas mentioned are financial institutions and  
USG
to protect the USA.

Also similar items. In no case does this specify an ISP or emergency
calls. Further, one would need to know the case law involved before
attempting to interpert is as anything more than specificly written.

Additionally people with shared phone service (party lines) are required
by law to relinquish usage of a phone if required for an emergency. I
don't know if there is a similar anything for VOIP. In the case of  
fiber,
one channel could certainly be set aside for 911 calls. I would imagine
something similar could be done for non-fiber netwoks.

IMO it is slimy to twist a law, or the intentions of a law to suit one's
own purpose.

Lynn


> I held this note for a while while I let my temper cool a bit.
> According to Brett the use of P2P  may be a law violation not just a
> isp s. Many sites are now doing updates using p2p in a non obvious
> fashion. Will my ISp claim I interfered with a VOIP call (voip is a
> lousy reliable channel since my ISP does not quote any reliability
> numbers) end me in jail? and just what is a P2P usage?? .
>
>
> Still steaming
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: November 27, 2008 4:08:57 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Dangerous Precedence Set - Federal Criminal Charges
> for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
>
>
> > A very dangerous legal precedence was set today.
> >
> > In the case of the 13 year old who committed suicide supposedly  
> > over a
> > MySpace hoax, the mother involved was found guilty on three federal
> > counts.
> > What of? Not of a serious criminal act.
> >
> > She was found guilty on three criminal counts (misdemeanors), in a
> > federal court, of violating the Terms of Service agreement.
>
> This is not new. In fact, the splash pages for the hotspots operated  
> by
> our ISP for retail establishments and hospitality venues have
> mentioned it
> for many years. "Exceeding authorized access" to a computer network   
> and
> causing damage to anyone or anything -- including injury or a  
> nontrivial
> financial loss -- is a per se violation of 18 USC 1030. See
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
>
> for the details.
>
> This is, in fact, a very good thing. Now that disrupting a computer
> network
> can easily endanger life and limb (e.g. when someone needs to make a
> VoIP
> call in an emergency), it's important that an ISP be able to prevent,
> say,
> someone who is using P2P from disrupting the operation of the network,
> preventing that call from going through by creating excessive jitter  
> or
> hogging bandwidth. The statute is fair in that the person can't be
> charged for causing a "de minimus" loss or injury. Someone actually
> has to
> be substantially harmed, and in this case of fatal online bullying  
> that
> threshold was certainly exceeded.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com