North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

  • From: todd glassey
  • Date: Mon Mar 31 18:10:15 2003

Stephen -  my responses in caps -



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of
Stephen Sprunk
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM
To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True



Thus spake "todd glassey" <[email protected]>
> Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> should be accountable for what people do with its
bandwidth
> and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
these
> laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> these there will be some arrests.

If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
too?

THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU
THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS
IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE -
I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES
NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE
GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT.

 No.
If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
jail too?

DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.

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.

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...

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 -

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.

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.

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