North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:43:33PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: > You have the right to monitor, but you weren't monitoring in the first > place. And thats why Ravi's monitoring and publishing is legal? You sound > like the manager on Dilbert. > > I'll tell you what. I'll do my part. I'll assume I was a recipient of one > of Norcals spams (in fact I think I was), and thus being one of the parties > whose electronic privacy was violated I can complain about Verio's > unauthorized monitoring. I didn't give Verio permission. Norcal didn't give > Verio permission. I'll forward the post to norcal and verio's agents, and > the US attorney. I am unclear why you would need to give permission to anyone who monitors any traffic that may be destined for your network. What electronic privacy? I am certain there are many instances where an ISP was sued because an admin was reading a users mail. And I'm also certain there are an equal number of cases where the case was dismissed in the ISP's favor. Why would the same not apply to a ISP whose network is privately owned. Now if you had a point to point circuit between you and Norcal and someone bridged on, collected data, and published it, sure, you have a case. Why would Norcal need to give QualNet permission to do do any monitoring? If this was done under QualNet's TOS and AUP, why would QualNet need to get permission from Norcal? QualNet is merely dealing with *its* customer, Norcal's upstream. Norcal's upstream is paying QualNet to deliver service as long as customer follows all appropriate contracts and TOS, etc. So the placement of any filter or the monitoring of any kind would inherently have the implicit permission to do as such. If Norcal's provider did not communicate that Norcal, then the liability would then fall on that provider, no? In regards to no law dealing with "unsolicited or misleading electronic mail", what about Washington State Law RCW 19.190.020. Source: ftp://ftp.leg.wa.gov/pub/rcw/title_19/chapter_190/rcw_19_190_020 -r -- finger [email protected] for pgp key Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one?