Tim May wrote... "I consider Don Frederickson despicable, and stupid. To not bother before understanding the context of the thread and say, basically, "Yes, we have narced out this customer to law enforcement, but they are just watching" is reprehensible." Well, I saw the got.net quote before and that brief sample seemed to indicate something entirely different to me. First of all, it says they've 'talked to the authorities about him' seems allows for the possibility of having been contacted BY said authorities. Second, it points out "he hasn't broken any laws"...third it says "please notify me when he actually breaks the law..."...that's kind of a nice, business-smart "fuck off" as I see it. In other words, the guy seems to acknowledge that he doesn't like a lot of Tim May's philosophies, but he won't even think about doing anything unless Mr May personally murders someone or whatever. In other words, he's saying he's going to support Tim May's free speech, but he's saying it in a way that won't cause him to end up in Guantanamo. But then again, that's the only quote I've seen... -TD

From: Tim May <timcmay@got.net> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> CC: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Got.net and its narcing out of its customers Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:17:22 -0800

On Dec 8, 2003, at 1:15 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 01:59:26PM -0800, Tim May wrote:

...

This actually fits in with something Lessig is widely known for, his "technology-custom-law" trichotomy (*).

(* He may call it something different...I haven't checked in a while.

I was reading some of David Friedman's articles over the weekend and noticed that he also used the same trichotomy, predating Lessig.

...

"I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They have chosen to watch but not act. Please feel free to notify me if he does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I will immediately inform the authorities."

Thank You Don Frederickson (co-owner and CEO of got.net, Santa Cruz)

When did Don Fredderickson write this?

-Declan

You can Google Groups for any of the unique text to find it, and the context.

Or, here's the thread (search on my name for the exact spot, or go to August 22nd):

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&safe=off&threadm=220820032357238678%25timcmay%40removethis.got.net&rn um=1&prev=/ groups%3Fq%3Dfrederickson%2Bgot%2Btim%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3DUT F-8%26oe%3DUTF -8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D220820032357238678%2525timcmay%2540removethis.g ot.net%26rnum%3D1>

Searching GG on "don frederickson got tim" is maybe more reliable than pasting this URL.

(If you are asking did Don write this on or about the 22nd?, I assume so, of course, as this is when this "Kal" nym was foaming and threatening to get my account yanked and have the cops raid my house.)

It happened in one of the "movies" groups (rec.arts.current-movies), when the thread was on DVD copy protection and the (claimed) illegality of making DVDs of movies.

I explained how I was cheerfully making an average of a DVD a day of my favorite current movies.

A couple of "nyms" went ballistic and foamed that they had forwarded my "admissions" to the RIAA and how I would face civil penalties and jail time, oh my!

Then one of them claimed he had arranged to have my account yanked, for "violation of the DMCA." He claimed he had sent copies of my "criminal" admissions to Got.net, to the RIAA, to "law enforcement" (shudder!), and so on.

The owner of Got.net replied to him and the above got posted (not by me).

I consider Don Frederickson despicable, and stupid. To not bother before understanding the context of the thread and say, basically, "Yes, we have narced out this customer to law enforcement, but they are just watching" is reprehensible.

The earlier owners/operators of Got.net took the stance that what people said on Usenet or on mailing lists was of no interest to them, save for a few carefully-spelled-out TOS issues (like spam).

The new owner apparently thinks it's his job to narc out his customers to law enforcement and then to tell others who are not even his customers that he has done so. Were I the litigious sort, I might contemplate suing.

(I haven't quit Got.net yet mainly because I am evaluating options for broadband in my rural location. Currently, DSL is about half a mile away, so may arrive soon--when it does I expect I will get it. Cablemodem is available to the top of my hill, but not down my long driveway, and the cable company will not allow me to either string my own lines or mount a WiFi or IR or similar atop the telephone pole. (My utilities are underground, but were laid when the house was built, circa 1976. No cable lines. Which is one reason I got a satellite dish, DirecTV, shortly after moving in. And, yes, I have looked at satellite broadband options like DirectLink...not impressive at all.) And the "Pringles can" approach is not something I want to spend my time engineering or debugging.)

My hunch is that Frederickson and Got.net have been forwarding copies of some of my e-mail to "law enforcement," which would have put them in violation of the ECPA, except that after 9/11 and the Patriot Act and all these actions are now considered just good corporate citizenship.

--Tim May

_________________________________________________________________ Cell phone switch rules are taking effect  find out more here. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx