I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminally prosecutable in nature...

"TS Glassey" <tglassey@earthlink.net> Mon, 02 June 2008 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA963A6BC4; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C9E3A6B92 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.883, BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dtfJQIKwUdwQ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CF628C1BA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=bx53KFs19RRcJCchbB08N3Qvu2cP6iJEJsjdNFCpS6GcxCp3k5u/wu12B1/rjbtj; h=Received:Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Organization:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.125.79.23] (helo=tsg1) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1K3De4-0003Dh-4k; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:16:32 -0400
Message-ID: <000b01c8c4d4$b94273f0$0200a8c0@tsg1>
From: TS Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminally prosecutable in nature...
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:17:16 -0700
Organization: Certichron Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79bb0ed980ede8d4ce2b116d72412de1d0350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.125.79.23
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: TS Glassey <tglassey@certichron.com>
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to ban me from 
the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable... His claim was 
that I failed to show him the money - that special case which establishes 
that as a standard.

OK Harald - the case you want to see is called "The United States v Drew" 
and was filed in the District Court of the Central District of California 
(i.e. LA). What it says is that any communications taking place between two 
parties across a State Line may constitute. I am sending you a copy of that 
indictment and the CFAA text under separate cover since its 1/2MB. How it 
plays out is that:

    1)    An act of Conspiracy under the terms of the Conspiracy Statute in 
the US is what happens when multiple people agree on something across an 
electronic transport whether in real-time or time-shifted in nature. The 
question is whether that is a conspiracy to hurt people or their rights in 
which case its an issue, or a conspiracy to get together for a dinner party 
which then would be totally cool one would think.

    2)    A violation of both civil and criminal statutes of the US Computer 
Fraud and Abuse Act (per the definition in section (a)(2)(B) of a 'Federal 
Interest Computer'.

Unfortunately this makes all of the covert negotiations for PR and other 
actions a crime in the US by my reading. Also one which the IETF and its 
Management including its chair and all AD's and WG Chairs are liable under. 
I think it also makes key parts of the IETF document/IP submission process 
possibly criminally prosecutable as well. Jorge - Any thoughts as the IETF's 
Attorney?

As to what to do about this - I suggest that its time for a set of lawyers 
who are not retained and paid by the IETF to formally review the IETF's 
processes for conflicts and flaws therein.

regards,
Todd Glassey CISM CIFI

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf