Re: Another round of viruses - encrypted this time

[mike808@users.sourceforge.net]

> I'm sampling data passing through my equipment in order to determine 
> its actual or potential performance impact, not to detect legality or 
> illegality.

"Sampling" for the purposes you state very likely falls under "fair use".
Removing MIME attachments or "naughty words" from your customer's email without
their knowledge and permission because you "feel like it" isn't. That's the
difference.

> My mail server also logs the connecting IP address, as does everyone else's.

That's data you collect performing your common carrier service. That's very
different than reading someone's email and altering it or violating the
copyright of the person that wrote it by making an illegal copy or derived 
work. The latter would be illegal.

> Anything displayed in public is public information, even if the person 
> doing said displaying didn't sign a waiver.

And public web servers on the public internet accept *requests*. That doesn't 
mean that if you create a request that causes the webserver to then delete all 
sorts of data from a database or files from the disk, that you won't get a knock
on your door, hang on a sec.... (*!@#hLASF7$$EDENO CARRIER


> I guess that, if I send a postcard with child porn on it, anyone who looks 
> at it and continues to transport it is breaking the law? Does the postman 
> get arrested if he's caught with it in his temporary possession?

No, because congress passed a law specifically exempting them from this
situation, and made it illegal for you to give it to them in the first place.
i.e. the fact that it is in their posession is a result of an illegal act. They
also have "common carrier" exemption as well, except that Congress granted the
Postmaster the specific right to inspect any mail.

> Email is a postcard, not a phone call.  I'm the 
> postman whom you trust to not read your postcard except possibly to 
> verify the address of the recipient, or to count how many cards your 
> neighbor's getting from that guy in the Bahamas.

It's not that I trust you to not read my postcard, it's that Congress forbids
you to, unless you want to accept liability for its contents, legal or
otherwise. Furthermore, it forbids you to do so without my knowledge as the
recipient. And it's not a postcard - it's an *envelope*. The fact that it is
trivial for you to open the envelope and look at the contents without my
knowledge or a trace doesn't matter. The contents of the envelope are not your
property -- unless you have a specific contract with recipients that otherwise
grant you additional rights and privileges.

> > I hope you have a contract with those people that explicitly grant you 
> > this ability in writing.
> 
> Anyway, I do have such a contract with coworkers.  My home service is 
> free to a select group of people who aren't sue-happy *and* aren't doing 
> anything illegal.  I'm not worried.  "Real" ISPs might worry, but I 
> personally don't.

You mean people you *think* aren't sue-happy. ... Today.

Just ask Steve or Kara about how they don't do business with sue-happy people
either. Or how AutoZone doesn't buy software from vendors that will sue them
when they pick a different vendor.

Mike/

---------------------------------------------
http://www.valuenet.net



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.