Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)

Dean Robb pceasy at
Thu Feb 4 04:46:22 UTC 1999

At 17:53 2/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 04:48 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Dean Robb wrote:
>>This has been ssoooooooo hashed out here, with the general consensus being
>>that 18 USC 2511 was inapplicable to blocking email.  
>It has been hashed out before. But the general consensus is not that 2511
>is inapplicable. Initially, a number of people thought so.  But they were

Yeah, yeah.  All wrong.  In your mind.  Not in the eyes of the law or
anyone who matters.

>2511 was amended by Congress specifically to make it apply to email.

Yup.  It was specifically amended to make it illegal to open and read
someone else's email without a warrant or compelling need.  Too bad it
doesn't apply to tracking or packet counting or anything else.

>How quickly some forget...

Yes, how quickly they forget that you keep making this argument every few
months with the same results:  no agreement from anyone and no proof

>>Also listed is the definition of "intercept", which is to acquire the
>>contents of a communication (blocking/filtering clearly fails here). 
>You begin to aquire the packet as soon as the first bit of the version
>number is received.  You are permitted to do things that are necessary
>incident to rendition of service.  You can receive it into memory. You can
>route it.

CONTENTS YOU FREAKING IDIOT!!! CONTENTS!!!  I can collect packets from now
till hell freezes with impugnity!  When I READ those packets...SEE what the
email says...THEN I break the law and not until.  This is the part you just
refuse to understand.  

>Thats a different claim.  Spammer is authorized to send packets.  You can't
>charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by
>anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity.  In this case,
>you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights.  So you can't
>claim the abuse clause.

Anti-spammers, the courts, various computer crime laws such as VA Code
18.2-152.6 .."Theft of computer services".  What do you think AOL keeps
winning those court cases based on?  Theft of Service.  If someone were to
spam the crap out of you and fill your drives up with their spam and tie up
all your phone lines, that's NOT theft of service?  I wonder if your tone
would change if it happened to you.

No, don't bother to reply to me personally...I'll just kick myself for
letting you out of the killfilter again and take more antacid.  Facts and
actual law don't sway your opinion.


Microsoft Windows(tm):  How much hair did you want to tear out today?  

Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]

More information about the NANOG mailing list