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

[mindfuq at comcast.net]

* Sunder <sunder at sunder.net> [2003-08-05 17:29]:
> 
> > > 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.

This is exactly what you asked- just read the quote.

> I asked why would AOL's policies in terms of their service
> agreements be forbidden by law when their customers agreed to them?

I answered this several times already.  Listen up.  Getting people to
sign a contract excusing illegal activity does not make that activity
legal.  If it did, you would see drug dealers asking their customers
to sign contracts stating that they're not to be held accountable.
People cannot agree via contract to violate a law, then expect to be
able to enforce such a contract.  This is a concept you need to
acquire.  Contracts are not enforceable simply because there was an
agreement.  There is other criteria that must be adhered to, one of
which is law.

> They're not necessarily considered a common carrier since they
> decided a long time ago to police the content of their service.

And?  It certainly doesn't matter to me whether we define these bozos
as a "common carrier."  What does matter is that they have a large
piece of the market share, and their illegal practices have a
significant impact on the internet community.

> > > 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.  

This is just a restatement.  I already explained that this is a
predatory and misleading contract.  If you don't accept this, then you
must make an argument to the contrary.  You would have a difficult
time arguing that AOL users are aware of the TOS.  Not a single AOLer
who I convinced to leave AOL was aware of the AOL TOS.

> Your claim that Bob was coerced is exteremely dubious.

Care to support that statement with anything?

> 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.

This is because Bob isn't a real person.  Bob is a hypothetical
character used to analyze security threats and activities, and Bob
lives in a hypothetical world.  So to summons Bob to this forum is
quite a silly idea.  You'll have for find a better way of making your
point.  

> 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

Why would Bob be motivated to check these pages, when Bob doesn't even
know there's a problem?  Remember, Bob is ignorant here; as Bob is not
informed that legitimate mail with his name on it is being trashed.

> Some relevant quotes addressing your dumb arguements:

These quotes only prove my point that the contract is predatory.
Again, you made my point for me.

> 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.

Predatory- my point exactly.  Again, you have made my case.

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

Bob did not give his *informed* consent to these terms, only his
consent.

> > > 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.

Again, this is just a restatement of what you already said, and it
does not address my statement.  Companies do not exist in an isolated
vacuum with their customers.  They affect others- people who have
absolutely no contract with them.  Does this lack of contract make the
company immune to legal liabilities?  Not at all.  I sue telemarketers
on a regular basis, and I win, and collect.  I have absolutely no
contract or business relationship with these companies, but they still
manage to cause me damage, and they must deal with me when I serve
them with court papers.  In fact, if I did have a business
relationship with these companies, it would weaken my case, because
the law allows companies to telemarket their own customers.  So this
argument that I must be paying them money in order for them to be able
to damage me is absurd.

> 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.

This isn't necessary.

> Otherwise, you have no way to interfere with the agreement between
> Bob and AOL.

Correct, Bob's contract with AOL does not involve me.  What I'm
talking about is AOL committing a DoS attack on me, which is
actionable regardless of Bob's contract.

> > 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."

The Internet doesn't have to be a "legal entity" for it to be
attacked, and have an impact on society.  Take the Slammer worm, for
example.  This thing attacked the Internet and had a huge impact on
Internet users.  If you try to explain to these users that they don't
have a claim against the attacker because the Internet is not a "legal
entity" by your terms, you'll have a very unconvincing point.  The
internet can be attacked, we've seen this.

> 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.

Again, no one is arguing that AOL isn't playing by these rules that
they created.  However, AOL must still abide by the law.  And yes, I
see your restatement that I don't have a contract with AOL.  This
statement isn't effective.  It doesn't matter that I don't have a
contract with AOL.

> > 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.

Again, there's this constant ineffective restatement that you make.  I
don't need to have a contract with AOL to press charges 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?

This argument suffers from the Straw Man fallacy.  You're
misrepresenting my argument, then attacking the misrepresentation.

> > 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???

Again, I agree with the fact that I cannot sabotage the city water
line.  But here inlies a flaw in the way you approach these problems.
You then state that I can't sabotage the water line because I have
some kind of contract with the city or water company.  This is not the
reason.  This idea that you can only make a claim against someone you
have a contract with is bogus.  What if someone who has no contract
with anyone in my state enters my property and destroys the water
main- they can still be held accountable, even without a contract.
This is the concept you are missing.

> > > 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?

Denial of service crime, located where the servers are.

> > > 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.

Straw man fallacy.  Attack my statements, not your distorted
re-presented versions of them.

> > 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.

The state must protect my freedom of speech.  So when I make a claim
against AOL for conducting a DoS attack against me, the state must
rule in my favor, or else they are failing to protect my free speech
rights.  

> > 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.  

There's your repeated ineffictive argument we keep seeing.  I've shown
that I do have a valid claim against AOL, and it seems you can't argue
this without the restatement fallacy.

> 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.

They can only do this if they can show libel.  However, showing AOL
users the very contract they agreed to can't really be considered libel.

> > > 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.

I did not know AOL would destroy my packets.  I sent them fully
expecting them to arrive in the recipients inbox, and found that AOL
took an action against it.  This is how I discovered the problem to
begin with.

> 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.

My ISPs contract does not state that they would blacklist my IP
address, so I have a claim there as well, but that wasn't the point of
this thread.

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

What I suggest to you is that you take a class in your local
university on argumentation theory 101.  Most of what you say has no
effect because it has one logical fallacy or another.  Study these
fallacies before posting; you'll find that you have to scrap most of
what you say before hitting send.