Got.net and its narcing out of its customers

[Tyler Durden]

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 at got.net>
>To: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
>CC: cypherpunks at 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