North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Thu Feb 04 14:31:56 1999

> Owen DeLong in private communication points up that he thinks that this
> permission is transitive. That has the problem that it trivially obviates
> all privacy.  Every provider is automatically authorized, no one is not
> authorized. Privacy is in the eyes of the provider. The ECPA was intended
> to prevent communications providers from looking at things they shouldn't
> and don't need to.  So I'm not convinced.  **thanks to Dean Robb, the
> Attorneys manual says it must be "specifically authorized"
Apologies to the list for posting this, but I had to respond to this
violation of my privacy and this slander.

No, I didn't.  I said that my AUP/TOS can create a transitive OBLIGATION
to disclose on the part of the downstream providers.  Further, I have
repeatedly said that if the downstream providers can provide their service
to spammers without violating my AUP/TOS, then there is no issue.  However,
if they deliver content to my network for transit which is in violation of
my AUP/TOS, then I have the rights to defend my property from this theft
of service.