spam whore, norcal-systems.net
pceasy at norfolk.infi.net
Tue Feb 2 06:52:46 UTC 1999
At 15:17 2/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 05:54 PM 2/1/99 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
>>This kind of monitoring is probably a direct violation of 18 USC 2511, as
>>is a public announcement of the monitoring results. Indeed, at present, I'd
>>say it appears to be the best example of an unauthorized 3rd party
>>violation I've seen so far. (most [all previous] people don't admit
>>details, but we know some do it). Unless of course you have authorization
>>from norcal or all the recipients of those 2 million packets to monitor.
>>Since norcal isn't your customer, I don't suppose you have any paper
>>showing they gave you permission to collect and publish information about
>What type of monitoring are you talking about? Or are you saying I cannot
>filter packets through my network as I please?
Of course you can. Dean likes to argue that any looking at, smelling of,
blocking of, rerouting of, counting packets of, etc., data is wiretapping
(the topic of 18 USC 2511).
Microsoft Windows(tm): How much hair did you want to tear out today?
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY 
More information about the NANOG