|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: SORBS Contact
Last time I saw someone so strenously crying that 'thou must accept mail' and trying so hard to justify why we should accept it was a low life toss pot scum sucking spammer, ooops I mean direct marketer, ahh stuf fit, both the same thing ... not implying anything here but if the shoe fits.... On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 06:46, David Schwartz wrote: > [combined responses] > > > You do realize that when we talk about "sending" data we are using > > language in a very loose way, right? Data isn't actually sent. When I > > "send" a packet of data, I still retain that data. If you lose it you > > have only lost your copy of it, not mine. > > The packet includes its origin, destination, next hop, and like > information. If the copy were identical to the original in all respects, it > would not be a copy. There must be some distinction between the two, and it > is that distinction that makes the "copy" useful. (That's why you made it.) > > > Are you one of those people that makes an extra photcopy when you have > > to fax one to someone? > > Why fax something to someone at all then? If the fax really is the same as > the original, why bother faxing? Obviously, there is a difference between > the two copies, and the value of the duplicate is in that difference. > > The fact that the information can change physical form doesn't mean it > isn't a coherent object. For example, my car may exchange electrons with > your sidewalk, but that doesn't make it any less my car. The value of the > car is not in which particular electrons it has (which can change) but in > their arrangement and utility (which does not). > > If I have some information that I want to get to a particular place, and I > make a copy and dispatch it toward its destination, that copy with its > destination information behaves just like my car does. It changes on the > way, but it does not ever become any less my car (or the ultimate > recipient's car) regardless of whose roads it travels over. > > > > Your argument is similar to a mall that claims they can > > > shoot people who > > > > It is illegal to shoot people whether they enter your mall or not. > > Precisely. Your obligation not to destroy someone else's data is a basic > tort obligation that applies to how you must treat other people's property, > even if it happens to be on "your network". > > > > The same would be the case if I used FedEx to return > > > something of yours to > > > you. If they destroyed your property, you would have a claim > > > against them > > > even though you didn't pay them for anything. > > > IANAL but I am pretty sure that my claim would be against you, not > > FedEx. You would have to counter claim against FedEx because you made > > the contract with them. > > You could make a claim against me and I could counter claim against FedEx. > But you could also claim against FedEx directly. They destroyed your > property. > > >Whatever you're smoking, you've really gotta share some with the rest of > >us. :P I guarantee you that there is not a single packet that I will route > >which is neither from nor to someone I have a contract with. If you want > >to give away free service to people without contracts that is your right, > >but I sure as hell don't have to. > > Transit networks route many packets that are neither from nor to anyone > they have a contract with. They pass the traffic from aggregators to > aggregators. This is the same as a person who walks from store to store in a > mall even though he has no contract with the stores, the stores have > contracts with the mall. > > >Packets are not property, there is no intrinsic value in returning them to > >sender. Plus I guarantee you if you drop off a package with Fedex and > >don't pay for it (thus entering into a contract with them for services), > >they will eventually throw it in the trash rather than deliver it. > > Packets are property. There is no value in returning them to sender but > there is value in delivering them to the recipient. If the lack of return > value is evidence against property, why is the presence of delivery value > not evidence for? > > I don't deny that you can drop a packet on the floor if nobody paid you to > carry it and you did nothing to solicit its presence on your network. That > is not the same as the case where somebody paid you to carry the packet, but > the person who paid you is not the owner of the packet but merely someone > similarly contracted by the owner. > > >This is no different from me authorizing Mail Boxes Etc to be my > >proxy for UPS packages, and them being allowed to simply discard > >anything from, say, an ex-wife. My ex-wife has no claim, in this > >hypothetical, against MBE for tossing my package in the trash, > >because they're acting as my agent. > > You are quite correct *if* they are the agent for the intended recipient. > In the general case, a transit carrier will not be an agent for the intended > recipient and possibly not for the originator either. > > >Of course, that only applies if you're dumb enough to answer '250 OK' to > >the '.' after the DATA. You 5xx that puppy anywhere before that, and you > >haven't taken custody of that data... > > Exactly. I think the mail case is simpler though because it is quite rare > for an email message to wind up in the hands of someone who has no > contractual relationship with either the sender or the recipient. Exceptions > would include things like relay rape where I think it's quite reasonable to > argue that the purely abusive nature of the transaction (and the sender's > specific selection of your relay) justify dropping it on the floor. > > Someone who chose to hand an email to you specifically even though you are > neither the sender nor the recipient and hope that you would deliver it is > not the same as someone who sent a packet to you because you are the route > towards the recipient. > > I suppose another version of the FedEx hypothetical would be if FedEx > advertised that they would carry packages to Denver without fee but then > destroyed half of them. BGP advertisements and DNS MX records are > solicitations for other people's property. > > I would also remind everyone that the interception or diversion of > electronic communications is illegal in the United States, even if you do > not look at the contents. (There are exceptions, of course, but the law > definitely is not "it's your network, do whatever you want with the data on > it".) > > DS
|