North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]

  • From: todd glassey
  • Date: Mon Mar 31 21:09:59 2003


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of
Joshua Smith
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:48 PM
To: todd glassey; Stephen Sprunk; Michael Loftis; Robert A.
Hayden
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]



"todd glassey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[cut]
>
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to
jail
> too?
>
> THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE -

not really, did the us postal service get in trouble for
delivering
anthrax laden letters?  no.  if someone at the post office
bypassed
the postal inspectors to 'hand deliver' those letters, then
that person
will be in trouble, not the entire office.


YES IT REALLY IS A BAD EXAMPLE. THE US POST OFFICE DID NOT
ACT AS THE PACKAGER OF THE LETTER OR THE TOOL FOR
INTERPRETING IT. IN THIS CASE THESE ARE PROVIDED BY THE
TIER-3 INTERCONNECT AND THE US POST OFFICE IS THE TIER-1
PROVIDER HERE.


>
>  No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
> jail too?
>
> DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.
>

operator - "what city and state please"

you - mumble mumble mumble

operator - "here is the number, thank you for using $telco"

i suppose there is a slight chance here, provided that same
operator
connected all of your repeated calls and then listened and
knew you
were being obscene, but kept connecting you anyway.

TRY THIS ONE - DIAL- OPERATOR ANSWER'S - HEY OPERATOR I WANT
TO MAKE A CALL BUT I DON'T WANT THE OTHER PERSON TO KNOW
WHAT NUMBER I AM DIALING FROM SO CAN YOU PLACE THE CALL FOR
ME FROM YOUR CONSOLE SO IT SHOWS UP AS ESSENTIALLY
ANONYMOUS?

THAT'S A BETTER ANALOGY.

> 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.
>

if my 'agent' takes delivery of the 'package', that is
essentially the
same as if i signed for the package.  if they don't know
what is in it,
and don't look, then they will probably not be charged with
anything
harsher than ignorance - if they look and participate, then
yes, they
will get in trouble too.

EXPLAIN THAT TO THE NUMBER OF MULES THAT ARE BUSTED DRIVING
ACROSS THE BOARDER WITH CONTRABAND IN THEIR TRUNKS THAT THEY
WERE UNAWARE OF.


> 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...
>

since when did a tier 2/3 carrier become the 'nanny' for
naughty
customers?  just because they don't move quite as much data
as a 'tier 1'
means that they have the extra time and resources to read
all of my mail
to ensure that i am not doing anything naughty...

THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN - ITS JUST THAT THEY NEGLIGENTLY
SHIRKED THEIR DUTY - BETTER YET - WHO TOLD THE TIER-2/3
PLAYERS THAT THEY WERE NOT RESISTIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS?

> 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 -
>

so what is a tier 1/2/3/4 carrier again?  if these laws do
not define
each one explicitly, then the definition is arbitrary.  if
said
definitions are published as operational requirements, then
you might
have a case...

YES BUT THAT'S LIFE. THE ISP'S TOLD THE WORLD WHAT WAS
POSSIBLE BASED ON WHAT THEY WANTED AND DIDN'T WANT TO
IMPLEMENT. THE PEOPLE SAID WE HAVE LAWS AND RULES AND THE
ISP'S SAID "HEY THIS IS THE INTERNET AND WE ARE BEYOND YOU
LOCAL LAWS" AND NOW THE PEOPLE OF THE VARIOUS STATES ARE
SAYING "BS YOU ARE" IN RESPONSE.

> 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.
>

so i must now proof-read my customer's emails?  i didn't
realize that i
was a secretary too (guess i should be charging more) -
should i charge
to spell-check by the word, sentence, or email?

NO - OF COURSE NOT AND IN FACT YOU MAY HAVE PRIVACY
VIOLATION ISSUES - WHAT YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY IS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO DECODE AND VERIFY EACH RFC822 HEADER AND
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT THEN STOP OFFERING EMAIL SERVICES.

> 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.
>

yep, this is smut... ;-)

NO STEPHEN ITS JUST THE WORLD BEING TIRED OF BEING LIED TO
ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE AND
REASONABLE.

> 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
>



"Walk with me through the Universe,
 And along the way see how all of us are Connected.
 Feast the eyes of your Soul,
 On the Love that abounds.
 In all places at once, seemingly endless,
 Like your own existence."
     - Stephen Hawking -