On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
* John Kozubik <john@kozubik.com> [2003-08-02 19:27]:
That is incorrect. AOL owns their network, and they can respond to your arbitrary communications on their network in any way they see fit.
Unfortunately, you're correct.
Maybe they will deliver your email to your AOL subscribing friend. Maybe they will block that email. Maybe they will translate the email into French and reverse the word-order and then send it to your friend. Maybe they will print it out and mail it back to you for no reason. All of these responses are perfectly legitimate, and represent a private entity using their property in whatever way they see fit,
Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address. Normally when Alice tries to transmit information to Bob, if Mallory decides to sabotage the communication, this is a denial of service attack, forbidden by criminal law.
However, if the communication passes through Mallory's back yard, we can let the attack happen because it's on Mallory's property. At the same time, if I sabotage the city water line that passes through my property, I can be held accountable. And rightly so. Mallory should also be held accountable for blocking communications. This is what needs to change.
This comparison is invalid. You are correct that your private property is ... well ... your private property, but if you look closely you will find that you have a contract (of some kind, be it an agreement, etc.) with your city - most likely in the form of an easement. So, by interrupting their water line, you would be breaking your contract. Make no mistake, if you hold a contract that AOL entered in with you that stipulates that they must send your email that you place onto their property to your friend, then by all means prosecute them to your fullest ability. Further, if the AUP/TOS ("contract") that your friend, as a subscriber, has with AOL stipulates something similar, then again, go forward with my best wishes. We all know, however, that AOL has no such contract with you, and that their contract with your friend most likely boils down to "we will do as we see fit and you will like it", and further, that even the peering agreements that AOL has with other service providers, common carrier laws, etc. most likely do not come anywhere near to stipulating this. As well they shouldn't. So once again, we are back to: AOL can do whatever they want with the bits you place on their private property.
It amazes me how many people on this list only respect private property when it is convenient for them to do so. (For reference, see the "Tim May argues (correctly) that people can't protest in his house" and, more recently, the "Gilmore thinks airlines can't refuse him travel for any reason they see fit" threads)
There's a balance of rights, and obviously private property rights aren't going to always get priority. While they're high on my list in *some* cases, they don't top human rights. Some rights are a little more fundamental and important than private property rights. And when someone abuses their property to damage someone else, I have zero respect for their private property rights. So I'm not at all surprized that someone would perceive an inconsistency on this issue, because there are so many more important rights that have a greater bearing on peoples happiness.
AOL isn't even a human, so to put the private property rights of AOL above the well-being of any human is a silly mistake.
In my particular case, AOL is blocking me from talking to friends and family. I suppose I could argue that the packets I create and send are created with my private property and resources, so those packets are my property, and AOL is vandalizing my property by destroying these packets. You can argue that how you want, but the bottom line is that AOL is using their property to gain power to control who may talk to who. This is clearly an abusive use of property, and I have no tolarance for it. They need to be removed from power, and the consumers who contributed to the purchasing of their property need to be given some rights.
This will be my last response to this thread. Your comments boil down to: a) You have forgotten that communication existed before the Internet, and further, that Internet communication exists just fine without AOL. The obvious conclusion that using AOL is an act of terminal stupidity is left as an exercise for the reader. b) You invoke the tired, meaningless appeal to the big bad corporation stomping on the little guy. In reality, AOL can do whatever it pleases with your bits when you place them on their property, barring any prior contract to the contrary. Any legislation that stipulates otherwise is misguided. And I think both of those are absurd. ----- John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com