spam whore, norcal-systems.net

You have the right to monitor, but you weren't monitoring in the first
place. And thats why Ravi's monitoring and publishing is legal? You sound
like the manager on Dilbert.

I'll tell you what. I'll do my part. I'll assume I was a recipient of one
of Norcals spams (in fact I think I was), and thus being one of the parties
whose electronic privacy was violated I can complain about Verio's
unauthorized monitoring. I didn't give Verio permission. Norcal didn't give
Verio permission. I'll forward the post to norcal and verio's agents, and
the US attorney.

Thanks. Now maybe we can get a court case on record.

    --Dean

Thanx Dean.. actually, we do have the right to monitor traffic on our

network, which we werent doing in the first place. What we had was an
extended access list that matched tcp port 25 outbound from their /23, and
logged that. Since they were using us as a transit provider for their
dubious activities we are well withing our rights per our AUP
(http://www.qual.net/support/aup.html). But its too late for you to take
back your post. Think first.

I am unclear why you would need to give permission to anyone who monitors
any traffic that may be destined for your network. What electronic
privacy? I am certain there are many instances where an ISP was sued
because an admin was reading a users mail. And I'm also certain there
are an equal number of cases where the case was dismissed in the ISP's
favor.

Why would the same not apply to a ISP whose network is privately owned.

Now if you had a point to point circuit between you and Norcal and someone
bridged on, collected data, and published it, sure, you have a case.

Why would Norcal need to give QualNet permission to do do any monitoring?
If this was done under QualNet's TOS and AUP, why would QualNet need
to get permission from Norcal? QualNet is merely dealing with *its*
customer, Norcal's upstream. Norcal's upstream is paying QualNet to
deliver service as long as customer follows all appropriate contracts
and TOS, etc. So the placement of any filter or the monitoring of any
kind would inherently have the implicit permission to do as such. If
Norcal's provider did not communicate that Norcal, then the liability
would then fall on that provider, no?

In regards to no law dealing with "unsolicited or misleading electronic
mail", what about Washington State Law RCW 19.190.020. Source:
ftp://ftp.leg.wa.gov/pub/rcw/title_19/chapter_190/rcw_19_190_020

-r

[I shouldn't but.....]

You have the right to monitor, but you weren't monitoring in the first
place. And thats why Ravi's monitoring and publishing is legal? You sound
like the manager on Dilbert.

I repeat, please state clearly how Ravi is "monitoring" this client?
Unless you expect every host on the 'Net to ignore port numbers.....

I'll tell you what. I'll do my part. I'll assume I was a recipient of one
of Norcals spams (in fact I think I was), and thus being one of the parties
whose electronic privacy was violated I can complain about Verio's
unauthorized monitoring. I didn't give Verio permission. Norcal didn't give
Verio permission. I'll forward the post to norcal and verio's agents, and
the US attorney.

I wonder if Dean thinx it is "illegal" for the phone company to stop
allowing you to connect long distance calls if you do not pay your bill.
Personally, I think it is a nearly parallel case. You and the phone
company enter into a contract, a business relationship with the telco -
just like an ISP's AUP. You break part of the contract (don't pay your
bill / send spam). They deny you service (filter long distance / filter
port 25). Hey, the phone company has to "monitor" the conversation to see
if it's local or long distance, don't they? :slight_smile:

I wonder if web caches are now illegal. They "monitor" port 80 - hell,
they go further. They monitor individual URLs. Looks like all web caches
are illegal.

I wonder if e-mail forwarding is illegal. You have to "monitor" it to see
that it really is on port 25 and even look to see the user name in some cases!

I wonder if MRTG is illegal. Or even HPOV. That *definitely* counts as
"monitoring". :slight_smile:

Things like NetFlow stats and traffic analysis are now out of the question.
You get to GUESS where to put the next link 'cause otherwise you are ...
breaking the law.

I'm beginning to think that the "World According to Dean" is actually
*more* restrictive than the current world 99% of us live in.

Thanks. Now maybe we can get a court case on record.

One can only hope.

  --Dean

TTFN,
patrick

I Am Not An Isp
www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle

Sweet! Think of the money our marketing department will save with all the free publicity! Are you sure you arent on our payroll?