RE: Hold on to your news servers

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

*shrug*

If Karl's latest windmill attack adversely affects anyone (via leaking
cancels), I suspect folks will quickly find out who's feeding him and make
it stop. This will be about as effective as his empty threat to somehow get
Playboy to punish folks who posted copyrighted images. I believe someone
went so far as to post images with their own PGP signature to call his bluff
and nothing ever happened.

It's unfortunate that someone with such a long history and undoubtedly a
wealth of experience chooses to spend their time in these fruitless
endeavors rather than using that energy for something useful.

Chris

2

It's unfortunate that someone with such a long history and undoubtedly a
wealth of experience chooses to spend their time in these fruitless
endeavors rather than using that energy for something useful.

That's a very portable paragraph. A lot of folks have said it about me,
for example. And I've said it about a lot of folks other than just Karl.
So while it's well said, it's about how people view each other rather than
about Karl in particular.

3

That's the most characterisitc and erudite paragraph I've heard here in
a month. Thanks, Paul.

Cheers,
-- jra

4

In the immortal words of Chris Mauritz (chrism@raremedium.com):

If Karl's latest windmill attack adversely affects anyone (via leaking
cancels), I suspect folks will quickly find out who's feeding him and make
it stop. This will be about as effective as his empty threat to somehow get
Playboy to punish folks who posted copyrighted images.

Although Karl's involvement is highly debatable, Playboy Enterprises
International has and continues to send Cease and Desist letters and
file actual lawsuits against people posting their images on both Usenet
and the web. Ditto Penthouse Productions, Flynt Publishing, IEG
Entertainment and pretty much everybody else in the business.

The pissing and moaning about the CleanNews cancels getting leaked
strikes me as a non-issue. Most major news transit sites use Highwind's
Cyclone, which can filter out the CleanNews cancels before they get
sent to your site, often without you having to even contact your provider
if they're using the CGI interface. And if things leak regardless, well,
the leaks will get plugged. ClariNet has gotten used as an example of
the supposed impossibility of doing this, but last I checked they were
still in business...

If there is any actual operational relevance to this discussion, it is
this: does accepting a CleanNews feed actually, as Karl suggest, provide
any legal protection to the subscriber site when dealing with accusations
of transiting illegal or copyrighted material? I strongly suspect that
the answer is "Not even slightly", and urge that ISP news administrators
talk long and hard with their corporate counsel before implementing this.
It is possible, depending on whether you present yourself as a carrier
service, that this could even increase your liability. (IANAL, and really
all I'm sayin here is that neither is Karl, and you should talk to
somebody who is.)

-n

------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org>
Like an exterminator running low on dust, I'm /
bug-powder itchin' and I can't be trusted. (--Bomb The Bass)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------

5

Uh, no. Usenet is NOT a carrier service. Its just not. You can try to
claim that it is, but I suspect that we'll find out shortly whether there is
any chance in hell of that succeeding - coming out of New York State.

One key when talking to lawyers, though, is to tell them the truth about
what you do and what you need to do in order to implement something. Its
very easy to get your shorts in a knot if you play coy with your counsel.

6

[I think we've pretty much exhausted the 2cc worth of operational
relevance that this had; this will be my last post to nanog on the
subject.]

In the immortal words of Karl Denninger (karl@Denninger.Net):

Uh, no. Usenet is NOT a carrier service. Its just not.

Well, so you've been asserting for many years now. (I seem to recall first
having this argument with you on news.admin.misc circa 1993.) My under-
standing of the case law surrounding the issue suggests that it's a bit
less cut and dried than that, but YMMV.

You can try to
claim that it is, but I suspect that we'll find out shortly whether there is
any chance in hell of that succeeding - coming out of New York State.

Funny thing that -- I would actually have pointed to the Vacco prosecutions
as a primary example of why putting one's trust in CleanNews as a legal
umbrella might not be the best idea. From all accounts, the two ISPs
Vacco shut down in New York were making all of the usual efforts to
cooperate in good faith with Vacco's office. Unfortunately for them, it
was an election year and Vacco was in a tight (indeed, still undecided)
race, so he decided to play the "Internet child porn scare" card
and raided them anyways: http://www.buffnet.net/ag/

Moral: acting in "good faith" is...an act of faith. It's no substitute
for concrete legal protections.

[Full disclosure: I am a resident of New York State with a profound
and repeatedly stated dislike for Vacco. The man is scum, and you can
quote me on that.]

One key when talking to lawyers, though, is to tell them the truth about
what you do and what you need to do in order to implement something. Its
very easy to get your shorts in a knot if you play coy with your counsel.

Agreed and emphasized.

-n

------------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org>
"Sure, the left would love to have a Christian Coalition. The tiny problem is
that it doesn't have Christianity." (--James Poniewozik)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------

7

> You can try to
> claim that it is, but I suspect that we'll find out shortly whether there is
> any chance in hell of that succeeding - coming out of New York State.

Funny thing that -- I would actually have pointed to the Vacco prosecutions
as a primary example of why putting one's trust in CleanNews as a legal
umbrella might not be the best idea. From all accounts, the two ISPs
Vacco shut down in New York were making all of the usual efforts to
cooperate in good faith with Vacco's office.

Uh, no.

The reports I've read say that Vacco's office sent them a notice (from an
undercover account) that they had the porn on their servers along with
where it was, and asked for a response.

They sent this to several ISPs (not just the two which were seized). Others
pulled the groups. The two that were seized didn't, but they DID respond
(negatively) to the request.

I suspect this is an issue for the courts to sort out - did they or did they
not have constructive notice of what was there. REGARDLESS, I would argue
that acceptnig a *group* which by its name denotes illegal activity is
begging for trouble.

If I can see from nothing more than a FreeAgent group list as a user on your
system that you're carrying groups which by their name denote illegal activity
I think you've got a problem.

Unfortunately for them, it
was an election year and Vacco was in a tight (indeed, still undecided)
race, so he decided to play the "Internet child porn scare" card
and raided them anyways: http://www.buffnet.net/ag/

Do you know if Buffnet is being completely truthful in that page? I don't.

Moral: acting in "good faith" is...an act of faith. It's no substitute
for concrete legal protections.

Actually, I have spoken to the NYAG's office. They have indicated to me
that if an ISP were accepting such a feed, they would not even consider
prosecuting them for this kind of thing. They obviously decline to provide
*blanket* immunity (what if the poster is on YOUR MACHINE?!) - good faith
is as far as you're going to get when it comes to general protections
against prosecutorial intervention.

[Full disclosure: I am a resident of New York State with a profound
and repeatedly stated dislike for Vacco. The man is scum, and you can
quote me on that.]

> One key when talking to lawyers, though, is to tell them the truth about
> what you do and what you need to do in order to implement something. Its
> very easy to get your shorts in a knot if you play coy with your counsel.

Agreed and emphasized.

Yep. Like admitting that news server software comes with *zero* configuration
out of the box, and that you have to *explicitly* set up the groups you accept
and who you peer with (even if the list is "*")