North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: spam colusion

  • From: Derek J. Balling
  • Date: Mon Jan 10 19:11:28 2000

Heck, I think it'd be funny for French Canadian officials to demand that a US company advertise in French. :) I think it'd be especially nifty if they chose Dean's company as a "test case".

He offers consulting services... he's offering them to anyone, which means that, using Dean's interpretation of the law, a Canadian official could claim that he was committing a crime in the Province of Quebec by not using French as the language on his web site. :)


At 06:51 PM 1/10/00 -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:

You better hope a court strikes that interpretation down, Dean.

If it holds, then it would mean that the reverse could also be true.

Imagine one of your users posts something defamatory to the Chinese
government on their web site, and a Chinese web browser picks it up.

Congratulations, your network just sent information into China that
violates Chinese law.

Better hope we don't sign an extradition treaty with them any time soon.

Similar crimes, albeit with less nasty punishments, could happen with
countries with which we *DO* have extradition treaties.

This is a can of worms that will bite us all in the ass, if opened.
Fortunately, I doubt that you'll get far.

I sure hope you don't.  I'd hate to see what happens if, say, somebody
uses my email server to send a death threat to, say, the President of

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Anderson" <[email protected]>
To: "Adrian J Close" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: spam colusion

> I've already spoken with FBI about juridiction. FBI considers crimes
> against US computers to be US crimes, even when initiated from foriegn
> countries.  They can extradite for this. That it originated from NZ
> an issue.  While the FBI agreed that these were indeed violations, my
> initial complaint was not prosecuted because we could at the time only
> up with $900 in damages.  We are closing on the $100K mark, where I'll
> an updated complaint, which I hope will get more attention.