Re: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]

[Joshua Smith <joshua.ej.smith () usa net>]

"todd glassey" <todd.glassey () worldnet att net> wrote:
>
[cut]
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
> too?
>
> THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - 

not really, did the us postal service get in trouble for delivering
anthrax laden letters?  no.  if someone at the post office bypassed
the postal inspectors to 'hand deliver' those letters, then that person
will be in trouble, not the entire office.


>  No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
> jail too?
>
> DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.

operator - "what city and state please"

you - mumble mumble mumble

operator - "here is the number, thank you for using $telco"

i suppose there is a slight chance here, provided that same operator
connected all of your repeated calls and then listened and knew you
were being obscene, but kept connecting you anyway.

> No.
>
> BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A
> CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND -
> THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE
> PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO
> APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS
> DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS,  MY TAKE IS
> THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN
> THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY
> OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.

if my 'agent' takes delivery of the 'package', that is essentially the
same as if i signed for the package.  if they don't know what is in it,
and don't look, then they will probably not be charged with anything
harsher than ignorance - if they look and participate, then yes, they
will get in trouble too.

> ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
> DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE
> DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE
> THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE
> POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS
> JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN
> THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...

since when did a tier 2/3 carrier become the 'nanny' for naughty 
customers?  just because they don't move quite as much data as a 'tier 1'
means that they have the extra time and resources to read all of my mail
to ensure that i am not doing anything naughty...

> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.
>
> I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON
> CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
> CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES
> MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3
> OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR
> INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -

so what is a tier 1/2/3/4 carrier again?  if these laws do not define
each one explicitly, then the definition is arbitrary.  if said 
definitions are published as operational requirements, then you might
have a case...

> Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam
> and DoS, since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier
> protection --
>
> NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR
> ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION
> ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS
> MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL
> FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND
> YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A
> GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" -
> TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG.

so i must now proof-read my customer's emails?  i didn't realize that i
was a secretary too (guess i should be charging more) - should i charge 
to spell-check by the word, sentence, or email?

> see
> the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
>
> I KNOW -  I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM
> THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S
> INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO
> IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT.

yep, this is smut... ;-)

> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert
> Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He
> throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen
> Hawking



"Walk with me through the Universe,
 And along the way see how all of us are Connected.
 Feast the eyes of your Soul,
 On the Love that abounds.
 In all places at once, seemingly endless,
 Like your own existence."
     - Stephen Hawking -