nanog mailing list archives
Re: Reporting Little Blue Men
From: Howard Goldstein <hgoldste () bbs mpcs com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:08:01 -0500
Dean Anderson writes:
At 11:42 PM -0500 1/23/98, Howard Goldstein wrote:In order for there to be a prohibited interception, one must have acquired the substance of another's communications, i.e., the "contents." s2511(1)This is a good point. I'm not sure I buy it, but it at least is a reasonable point. It seems to me that the change of definition was to loosen the meaning of intercept so that one doesn't have to actually block to be in violation, rather than to require reading of the contents for there to be a violation, as you interpret.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're getting at here with respect to a loosening. Is the discrepancy between the common usage meaning of the word "intercept" and the printed definition a source of concern? Definition sections work something like header file #defines. One may replace all instances of the word "intercept" with "googleplex" and arrive at the same result.
The wiretap act is intended to protect proprietary rights in message content from another's wrongful taking. There's no indication anywhere of intent to gaurantee a level of service for content's transmission.I don't think anyone would expect you to guarantee a level of service. But it is not unreasonable to expect that you are not arbitrarilly and capriciously discrimminating against people who reasonably expect you to pass their packets. This goes far beyond spamming. Consider what might happen if it actually is permissible for people to arbitrarilly blackhole another person or company, at a whim. Suppose Microsoft decides to take out Netscape during a dispute. Etc. Such behavior is already illegal, given my interpretation.
I don't disagree with the last sentence, provided the claim of wrongdoing is based in something other than these statutes...
I find it somewhat reassuring that those desperate spammers who have litigated related matters haven't attempted recovery through the civil remedy provided by s2520. Don't you agree that they would have tried if the theory had even a tiny bit of merit?You have to know about it.
I can't imagine someone making it through the second year conlaw classes and not butt heads with wiretap act two or three or more times, but I concede the possiblity.
It appears the spammers aren't very good at getting good lawyers so far, considering how they phrased their cases so far.
I thought counsel for the detestable firm with "C" in its name put forth an interesting defense (company town). The failure to prevail probably speaks more to the lack of merit in his client's position than it does the competence of the representation.
But the civil damages aren't much, either.
Current thread:
- Re: ridiculous misreadings of laws, (continued)
- Re: ridiculous misreadings of laws John R. Levine (Jan 22)
- Re: ridiculous misreadings of laws Dean Anderson (Jan 22)
- Re: ridiculous misreadings of laws Howard Goldstein (Jan 22)
- Re: ridiculous misreadings of laws Jeremy Porter (Jan 22)
- Message not available
- Re: ridiculous misreadings of laws Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 22)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Steve Sobol (Jan 23)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Dean Anderson (Jan 23)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Howard Goldstein (Jan 23)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Dean Anderson (Jan 26)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Henry Linneweh (Jan 26)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Howard Goldstein (Jan 26)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Steve Sobol (Jan 26)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Dean Anderson (Jan 23)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Gary R Wright (Jan 22)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Michael S. Fischer (Jan 22)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Steve Sobol (Jan 23)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Eric Osborne (Jan 21)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Justin W. Newton (Jan 22)
- Re: Reporting Little Blue Men Paul Ferguson (Jan 22)