North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Reporting Little Blue Men
Dean Anderson writes: > I might be wrong, but no one has yet given an explanation of how this law > doesn't apply. Fair point. Here's how I analyze it for my own use : The bad act is the interception of a communication by persons not parties thereto, and by those who are not necessary for the communication. "Interception" is defined in the wiretap act as the acquisition of the communication's "contents" (a term of art, also defined). 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) Yet the kind of blocking most of us contemplate (blackhole route, sendmail check_[mail|relay], and the like) when "blocking" is brought up inhibits acquisition of the contents. There is no violation if no "contents" are acquired. 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 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? --  In other words, this is not legal advice, and I do not represent anyone on this list -- no one here has paid me. Consult your own attorney before taking or refraining from taking any action regarding the subject matter discussed herein.