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: Armando Stettner <aps () ieee org>
Date: November 29, 2008 12:34:36 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Editors note incl.  Dangerous Precedence Set -  
Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
Reply-To: Armando Stettner <aps () ieee org>

For IP'ers, if you wish.

"This is, in fact, a very good thing."  "The statute is fair in that  
the person can't becharged for causing a "de minimus" loss or  
injury."  Really?

How about requiring that network providers of services purporting to  
offer 'life-line' capabilities implement robust-enough networks such  
that otherwise morally-OK and technically feasible usage doesn't  
adversely affect such services?

  armando






Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Date: November 29, 2008 10:14:00 AM EST
> To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: [IP] Re:  Editors note incl.  Dangerous Precedence Set -  
> Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
> Reply-To: dave () farber net
>
> 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