Lawsuit threat against RBL users

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

I have avoided getting into this debate, but this has really gone
  too far. Bob Allisat's contention is that any ISP that attempts
  to filter content is violating "inalienable rights and freedoms"
  is way off the mark.

  Ok, Mr. Allisat, I'll bite -- explain to me what "right" is being
  violated when I stop a spammer that is trying to advertise "Hot
  Pussy Sites" to eleven year old children? Or how about get rich
  quick schemes that forge their addresses to hide their identities
  so you can not trace them after they rip you off? Or chain letters
  that clog mail spools while susceptible people worry about their
  outcomes if they don't comply with the letter?

  You scream "inalienable rights and freedoms", but your motive is
  to promote and encourage those that would prey on the most
  susceptable of our society. Freedom that robs our children of
  their innocence, promotes con artists, and feeds on the vulnerable
  is not freedom, Mr. Allisat!

  But I think you have another axe to grind as well. Your letter
  to Karl Denninger contains the following exerpts:

  * "Whatever rights, freedoms and liberties we have are eliminated
      in favour of Kangaroo courts like Vixie's network or RBL finks,
      Customer Services flunkies and over-bearing capitalists ..."

  * "They hide behind arguments that their systems are private
      property and their alleged "property rights" are more important
      than our inalienable rights and freedoms."

  * "Our rights to security over our data and communications, to
      privacy and access to commercial and personal e-mail, etc are
      all *SUPERIOR* to any tertiary rights these business organizations
      may claim."

  * "We have universal, inalienable rights and freedoms. These
      precious things extend to private property and internationally."

  Based on these statements, I can only conlude you have a huge
  problem with the capitalistic system, and that you favor the
  elimination of private property in order to foster your "freedom".
  That is the same argument Fidel Casto uses on the people he
  suppresses, and was the common theme among communist countries
  before the fall of the Berlin wall. Joseph Stalin shared your
  views on private property. I don't. As a capitalist, I find
  your ideas offensive and misguided.

  Wake up Mr. Allisat -- you already have a feee system. One that
  can choose whether to filter spam or not. One that can choose
  whether to give his private property away or not. Your concept
  of "inalienable rights and freedoms" is one that would force all
  ISPs to do things YOUR way, instead of the current free choice
  system we currently have.

  And one other point -- calling the people that help customers
  configure their systems to connect to the Internet "Customer
  Services flunkies" is insensitive and unfair. I know the employees
  that work for my company go out of their way to make sure every
  customer is helped and treated with respect, regardless of the
  customers experience with computers or the Internet. That is one
  of the advantages of paying for Internet service -- you get real
  customer service from people who actually care whether or not
  your experience is a positive one. That is capitalism.

  Paul Vixie and his team of "RBL finks" are to be commended on the
  excellent job they have done in stopping the poisonous assult of
  pornographic filth, fraud, and manipulation that spam brings to
  people everyday. And for people that want to take the RBL even
  further, we provide a list via autoresponder at spamlist@us.net
  that blocks even more of this crud. And here is the best part --
  its up to the FREEDOM of the individuals that use these resources
  to determine if and how they want to use them.

  There are no "inalienable rights and freedoms" that give spammers
  unrestricted access to the Internet. Even the courts have upheld
  the right of ISPs to block and filter spam -- see the URL
  http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html#cyberpromo

  If you want to use your time and resources to foster and promote
  the activites of people that prey upon society at large, go right
  ahead -- that's "freedom", and it is your "right" to do so. I have
  always found it interesting that the people the scream the loudest
  about their rights do it in the context of denying others their
  rights. As an ISP, I have the right to choose. And I choose not
  to do business with spammers.

  Dave Stoddard
  US Net Incorporated
  301-361-6000
  dgs@us.net

Bob Allisat writes:

2

David Stoddard wrote:

I have avoided getting into this debate, but this has really gone
too far. Bob Allisat's contention is that any ISP that attempts
to filter content is violating "inalienable rights and freedoms"
is way off the mark. (much sensationalist nonsense deleted)

Craig Labovitz <labovit@merit.edu> writes:
+ Bob,

3

<snip> bunch of crap deleted.

Are you on a C64, or do you just like 40 char on a line? Why don't you do
us all a favor and upgrade. It will not bother me anymore because you made
it to MY blackhole list in procmail.

I still do not understand how you can say that as a ISP I dont have the
right to deny my users whatever I want. If I want to be a ISP and not
provide access to UUNet I can do that. I may not keep a lot of customers,
but I am not infringing on anyones rights. They can always get a new
provider. If your website is associated with spam and you get blackholed
then you can deal with the problem or not reach users who chose to stay
with ISPs that subscribe to the RBL.

4

The host of this list has
indicated this discussion
is off-topic. Unless a less
anal-retentive interpretation
of "technical and engineering"
is encouraged I'd say the
following article by Nathan
Stratton is probably to be
regarded as "off-topic".

Nathan raves:

Are you on a C64, or do you just like 40 char on a line? Why don't
you do us all a favor and upgrade. It will not bother me anymore
because you made it to MY blackhole list in procmail.

I still do not understand how you can say that as a ISP I dont
have the right to deny my users whatever I want. If I want to be a
ISP and not provide access to UUNet I can do that. I may not keep
a lot of customers, but I am not infringing on anyones rights.
They can always get a new provider. If your website is associated
with spam and you get blackholed then you can deal with the
problem or not reach users who chose to stay with ISPs that
subscribe to the RBL.

Bob Allisat

Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net
http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

5

Warnings:
1) IANAL.
2) This is quote, interspersed with rebuttal.
3) Although it involves no directly technical issues, it is an operational issue
none the less. If you doubt it, ask yourself this question: would you rather
spend your time fixing network problems, or monitoring content and appearing in
court?
4) This post is somewhat lengthy.

David Stoddard wrote:
<snip>

        Based on these statements, I can only conlude you have a huge
        problem with the capitalistic system, and that you favor the
        elimination of private property in order to foster your "freedom".
        That is the same argument Fidel Casto uses on the people he
        suppresses, and was the common theme among communist countries
        before the fall of the Berlin wall. Joseph Stalin shared your
        views on private property. I don't. As a capitalist, I find
        your ideas offensive and misguided.

As a capitalist, here's something you should find even more offensive and
misguided: Since you've volunteered to monitor content, the government is likely
to require that you do. Read further.

        Paul Vixie and his team of "RBL finks" are to be commended on the
        excellent job they have done in stopping the poisonous assult of
        pornographic filth, fraud, and manipulation that spam brings to
        people everyday. And for people that want to take the RBL even
        further, we provide a list via autoresponder at spamlist@us.net
        that blocks even more of this crud. And here is the best part --
        its up to the FREEDOM of the individuals that use these resources
        to determine if and how they want to use them.

        There are no "inalienable rights and freedoms" that give spammers
        unrestricted access to the Internet. Even the courts have upheld
        the right of ISPs to block and filter spam -- see the URL
        http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html#cyberpromo

Of course they did. Think about it. You just volunteered to monitor content for
an industry which the government is busy wringing its hands over. The intrinsic
difficulty in analyzing packet-switched traffic for violations of the law has
stymied law enforcement agencies ever since the Internet became an issue. That
doesn't play well on the nightly news, when the blubbering-mother-of-the- week
pisses and moans on TV about how her precious little Johnny got kidnapped,
buggered, and slaughtered by some cretin "on the Internet" who knows how to use
IRC and was able to give her kid a plane ticket while she was busy watching
"Jerry Springer" reruns instead of asking what the hell her kid was doing on the
computer. "Sorry, it just isn't possible to do anything about it, we don't have
the capability to monitor it" isn't what the general public wants to hear, and
the LEAs and politicians have been tying themselves up in knots over it.

About this time, along comes a Crusade, one which is worthy of legend. On the one
side is Spamford Wallace and his crew of misbegotten miscreants, and on the
other, Paul Vixie and his band of righteous merry men. (I have chosen Spamford
and Paul as the figureheads for their respective movements, actual history
notwithstanding...)

So Paul decides that, to battle the forces of Spam, he shall create a list of
those who sin against the Internet at large, and propagate it to others. Both
these points are important. If Paul wants to play God with his little corner of
the Internet, no problem. Unfortunately, he's not going to be able to step down
from that position on a whim. (Ain't that a bitch - Crusaders can't stop
Crusading because their feet get tired or because they're getting shot at. Aww.)

What does this mean? The next time something originating from or coming into
Paul's network is deemed offensive, a waste of money/bandwidth/time/etc,
unethical, or any other negative adjective, it will not be the U.S. Government
who is put in the position of regulating it - it will be Paul. You see, Paul has
assumed the position of "Being On Top Of It". Even if Paul doesn't feel that
way, even if he feels that regulating that particular content will be detrimental
to the Internet at large, even if he strenuously objects and says that "it's not
his job", he will be put in that position, because _he volunteered for the job_.
Precedent will have been set, and although IANAL, I know enough about the law to
know that precedent is a bitch to break with. The government and regulatory
agencies will simply allow and "encourage", through the promise of jail time,
copious fines, and multimillion dollar civil lawsuits, "self-policing" of the
Internet by the administrators, all the while wiping the sweat from their brow
and congratulating each other on having dodged another bullet.

In addition, when the system fails - and as I and all other sysadmins know, all
systems fail - it won't be the U.S. Government on the hook for screwing it up.
It'll be you, because _you volunteered for the job_.

Oh yeah. The other important thing - pick up "Paul" and put down your first
name, because everyone who subscribes to the RBL will be doing exactly the same
thing. There's a reason that the phone companies are common carriers - it's
because it relieves them of a massive amount of liability. The telcos do some
things right on occasion, ya know.

This is not to say that I believe that spam is a Good Thing, or that the RBL is a
Bad Thing. I hate Spamford for what he has wrought, and I believe that the RBL
is a natural and necessary response to it. I do, however, suspect that the
trouble that Spamford and his ilk have caused, which has long since been dealt
with, is nothing compared to the trouble which has now been assumed by the
sysadmins and network operators.

Congratulations. The Chinese have a saying about being careful what you wished
for...

        If you want to use your time and resources to foster and promote
        the activites of people that prey upon society at large, go right
        ahead -- that's "freedom", and it is your "right" to do so. I have
        always found it interesting that the people the scream the loudest
        about their rights do it in the context of denying others their
        rights. As an ISP, I have the right to choose. And I choose not
        to do business with spammers.

I wonder if you'll be so cavalier when the blubbering-mother-of-the-week is busy
suing your arse off for not protection her little kid from:
a) pedophiles
b) bomb-making instructions
c) satanic song lyrics
d) pork (the other white meat)
e) Chevrolet
f) anything else deemed offensive.

Tell me, what would you "choose" to do should one of your customers send back,
stapled to their usage contract, a list of content they find objectionable and
ask you to filter it? Suppose you can't, don't, or won't? How about if you
screw it up and some gets through?

Power comes with responsibility. Responsibility carries with it liability. Are
you prepared to assume the liability that comes with "choosing" to selectively
block content?

6

To make a story short Virginia has joined the ranks of NO SPAM and the
government DOJ and Whitehouse have made statements to the effect, that
we govern ourselves and clean up our messes.

That is precisely what is happening on an operational level globally.
wonderful threats are great but the users of the internet support
this action as a starting point against SPAMMERS.

Henry R. Linneweh

Szechuan Death wrote:

7

There is a different between traffic that is objectionable because it
abuses the network infrastructure (e.g. Smurf DOS attacks) and traffic
that is objectionable because of the nature of the content (libel,
'porno', copyright violation etc.).

I believe common carrier such as the phone companies have every right
and do take actions against abusers of network (e.g. people using the
blue boxes in the old days to get free long distance calls) but decline
to act as censors for the content.

I believe the RBL list falls into the abuse prevention category. Now,
if the RBL selectively filters Spam based on the content type of the
Spam, that will be censorship.

Regards,
John Leong

8

There is a different between traffic that is objectionable because it
abuses the network infrastructure (e.g. Smurf DOS attacks) and traffic
that is objectionable because of the nature of the content (libel,
'porno', copyright violation etc.).

I believe common carrier such as the phone companies have every right
and do take actions against abusers of network (e.g. people using the
blue boxes in the old days to get free long distance calls) but decline
to act as censors for the content.

  I don't know about where you live but here in BellSouth land you can
call the phone company and block outgoing 900 number calls from your line. I
can also block any incoming phone calls that attempt to hide their calling
number. As well if someone repeated calls you with "crank" calls you can also
have the number traced and have action taken by the phone company on your
behalf. Does this count as censorship? I believe this is analogous to what the
RBL does.

I believe the RBL list falls into the abuse prevention category. Now,
if the RBL selectively filters Spam based on the content type of the
Spam, that will be censorship.

  I'm all for the RBL. I fail to see how anyone can make a valid
argument that one should be forced to receive any mail sent to ones mailbox.
Or that anyone can force a private company to accept unsolicited advertising
directed at its customer base from another company or person(s). Companies
like magazine publishers get money for selling their customer lists. If
spammers want to make the argument that they should be able to send whatever
they like to customers of ISP's or other networks, then I propose that they pay
(through the nose) for the privelege. :wink:
    -Scott

9

Warnings:
1) IANAL.
2) This is quote, interspersed with rebuttal.
3) Although it involves no directly technical issues, it is an

operational issue

none the less. If you doubt it, ask yourself this question: would you

rather

spend your time fixing network problems, or monitoring content and

appearing in

court?
4) This post is somewhat lengthy.

[blathering stripped]

Tell me, what would you "choose" to do should one of your customers send

back,

stapled to their usage contract, a list of content they find objectionable

and

ask you to filter it? Suppose you can't, don't, or won't? How about if you
screw it up and some gets through?

Power comes with responsibility. Responsibility carries with it

liability. Are

you prepared to assume the liability that comes with "choosing" to

selectively

block content?

1) RBL is not content biased. Let me repeat that in case you are having
trouble with the sentence structure.. The RBL is not content biased.

2) Were it to become content biased, MHSC would be among the first to quit
using it.

3) The RBL is based on specific behaviour which is deemed unacceptable.
This behaviour is called spamming. Note that it *still* does not suppress
the spam. It only prevents spam from being delivered here.