[eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?

[Sunder]

----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---------------------------
 + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of   /|\
  \|/  :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\
<--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech.  \/|\/
  /|\  :Found to date: 0.  Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.        \|/
 + v + :           The look on Sadam's face - priceless!       
--------_sunder_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 mindfuq at comcast.net wrote:

> * Sunder <sunder at sunder.net> [2003-08-04 17:00]:
> > 
> > > 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.  
> > 
> > Why is it forbidden by law?
> 
> I can think of hundreds of reasons DoS attacks are illegal.  Now I'm
> not sure if it's illegal everywhere; I'm only familar with the way
> it's written in the California Penal code, which is where Mallory is
> located in this case.  But to answer your question, just look at all
> the damage that's caused by DoS attacks.  Look at the Slammer worm.
> It would be a seriously neglectful to allow such damaging attacks on
> people and businesses.

No, you're ignoring my whole entire arguement - and that is telling.  You
realize you're wrong, but just refuse to admit it.  I didn't ask why
denial of service attacks are forbidden by law.  That's obvious.  I asked
why would AOL's policies in terms of their service agreements be forbidden
by law when their customers agreed to them?  They're not necessarily
considered a common carrier since they decided a long time ago to police
the content of their service.

 
> > Bob signed a contract with Mallory waiving certain rights in
> > exchange for the service provided by Mallory. Mallory provided full
> > disclosure of it's rights to Bob along with Bob's responsabilities,
> > etc.  Bob chose to accept those terms, how is this illegal again?
> 
> First of all, Bob was coerced into this contract because Bob had no
> idea that the fine print said there may be cases where he doesn't get
> the service he thinks he's paying for.  Specifically, Mallory didn't
> tell Bob that she would be filtering his mail for him, and certainly
> didn't tell Bob that she would take the liberty of blocking some
> non-spam mail as well.  Such a contract is quite questionable, and I'd
> like to see it put before a court for fair analysis.

Not at all.  Bob agreed to the terms of service and was asked to both read
and acknowledge that he read them.  AOL's terms of service are available
for anyone to read at any time.  Regardless, should Bob not live up to his
end of said agreement, the contract would be null and void, as would his
access.  At the same time Bob is free to sever his contract with AOL by
the same rules.  Your claim that Bob was coerced is exteremely
dubious.  

There is no proof of this, we do not have Bob here claiming this.  We
have, only you, a third party uninvolved in Bob's agreement with AOL
making such claims because you cannot communicate with Bob.

Either way, if Bob is unsure of what he agreed to, he (and you) can check
these pages: http://www.aol.com/copyright.adp and
http://www.aol.com/copyright/rules.html

Some relevant quotes addressing your dumb arguements:

------------

"By using this site, you signify your agreement to all terms, conditions,
and notices contained or referenced herein (the "Terms of Use"). If you do
not agree to these Terms of Use please do not use this site. We reserve
the right, at our discretion, to update or revise these Terms of
Use. Please check the Terms periodically for changes. Your continued use
of this site following the posting of any changes to the Terms of Use
constitutes acceptance of those changes."

"ALL MATERIALS, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN
OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE (THE "CONTENT") ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND
"AS AVAILABLE" FOR YOUR USE."

"America Online reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate
your access to all or part of this site, with or without notice."

"However, America Online and its agents have the right at their sole
discretion to remove any content that, in America Online's judgment, does
not comply with the Rules of User Conduct or is otherwise harmful,
objectionable, or inaccurate. America Online is not responsible for any
failure or delay in removing such content."

--------------

These are the terms to which Bob has agreed to.  It clearly states that
AOL may if it chooses to remove access to content it deems harmful for
whatever reason.  It does not list what those reasons are, therefore, they
are at its discretion - NOT AT YOURS.

There is no need for any law to change this.  Bob and AOL both voluntarily
agreed to these terms.  End of story.

> > If the service Mallory provides Bob is inadequate, that's between Mallory
> > and Bob, not between Alice and Bob.  Alice and Mallory have no contract
> > what-so-ever.  It's upto you, Alice, to convince Bob of this fact.  If you
> > can't, that's Bob's choice, not yours.  And you have no business to
> > interfere between Bob and Mallory.
> 
> The problem with this argument is that Mallory is not just denying
> service to Bob, but Alice as well.  Furthermore, Alice may not even
> have the option of explaining the service problem to Bob, because
> Mallory is preventing Alice from talking to Bob.

Stop right there.  AOL's contract is with Bob. NOT WITH you, ALICE.  You
have no claims to make.  You have no contract with AOL, it is under no
obligation whatsoever to deal with you.  If you don't like that, sign up
with AOL, agree to their terms, and file a complaint - if those rules will
allow you to do so.  Otherwise, you have no way to interfere with the
agreement between Bob and AOL.

> Mallory is everyone's business, because a malicious attack on the
> Internet affects everyone.  The fact that Bob is paying Mallory money
> doesn't make it okay- in fact, it worsens the problem, because the
> perpetrator is being compensated by her own victims.

No.  There is no such legal entity as "The Internet."  AOL, like all other
ISP's (I'm stretching the term here) has contractual agreements with other
ISP's from which it obtains service.  Depending on what those rules allow,
AOL may or may not be playing by the rules.  That's up to whomever feeds
AOL to decide, not you.  You are not AOL's ISP.  You have no contract with
AOL on that level either.

AOL is not actively causing any denial of service to anyone other than
those who agreed to be subject to AOL's jurisdiction - by contract.  Says
so in their terms that they reserve the right to do this.

> Such a contract is predatory, and has no business in this country.  It
> prays on ignorant users, and provides a false representation for what
> the user is signing up for.  FYI- you can't put anything you want in
> fine print, and expect it to be legally enforceable.  Even if two
> parties agree that an illegal activity is okay, this does not legalize
> the activity.

That is not upto you to decide.  That is upto Bob.  Since you haven't
entered any business agreement with AOL, you cannot make such claims
against them.

> > No.  Either you have agreed to live in said house by purchasing it, and
> > have therefore become a citizen of said city, and by such actions agreed
> > to abide by it's laws, or pre-existing laws allowed the city to run such
> > water services through your propery.  This too is by contract.
> 
> This is just what I said.  You're making my point here.  


I am?  So, then you understand that you have no claims whatsoever against
AOL since you aren't using their service, nor have any contract whatsoever
with them?  Then why all the BS?

> Absolutely, I
> cannot sabotage the city water line that goes through my property.

Of course, because they're providing you with water service.  Therefore,
you have agreed to those implict or explicit terms.  You have a contract
with the city, or the water company.  Either because that's what the laws
of the city state, or because you've signed a contract with the water
company agreeing to their terms.  Just like Bob signed a contract with
AOL.  So what's your beef???

 
> > Where, Ms. Alice, is your contract with Mallory again?
> 
> No contract necessary; criminal law is enforceable w/out a contract.
> Even more so, actually, because there is no chance of a contract
> removing the effect of Alice's claim.

Where's the crime again?

> > So, in that case if you need a red stapler, you should be able to break
> > into AOL's offices and steal one?????  Since fucking when?
> 
> Certainly not- there is no superceding free speech right or anything
> of the kind that would entail stealing a stapler.  

Hey, you're the one that claimed that the needs of humans outweigh those
of a corporation.  So by that logic, not that I agree with it, should you
need a stapler, you should be able to take one from AOL.  Of course it's
assinine.  That's what I'm trying to show you.  That your arguement is
full of shit.

> Blocking email,
> OTOH, violates multiple rights: free speech, right to assemble and
> petition the government, freedom of enterprise.. it could even run
> into public safety issues.  So this stapler analogy doesn't really
> work here.

The 1st ammended prevents >CONGRESS< from limiting the freedom of
speech. More precisely from creating laws that do so.  It does not limit
private or public companies from doing so.  The 1st has nothing to do with
this.  You're clueless.

> While I have gotten all but one friend and all family members to drop
> their AOL/Earthlink services, this still remains an issue for users
> whome I don't know personally.

And you have no contract with either AOL or that friend.  Like I said, you
have no right to interfere in AOL's business.  If you can convince their
subscribers that AOL sucks, and they chose to cancel their service, that's
fine, that's wonderful - though if AOL finds out, they may sue you for
loss of business.

> > No, dumbass, you placed those packets on said network repeatedly after you
> > have discovered that they will be dropped in the bit bucket, that's too
> > bad for you.  You've vandalized your own packets.
> 
> I didn't do this, I created them- AOL is the one destroying things.
> I'm the aaahteeest, the creator.. AOL is the destroyer, using their
> property destructively.

Yes, you did.  As soon as you hit the send button in your mailer and had a
To:, CC:, BCC: header containing @aol.com.  Your actions caused your email
to be sent to AOL's mail servers, which - as you already expected since
you knew, caused them to be deleted.

Further, I would urge you read your ISP's terms of service.  There's no
place in there that they guarantee delivery of email to an end user of
another ISP.  Because they can't.  So you have no such expectation.


I'm done with this, you're too clueless to continue.  Come back when you
get some brains.