Return-Path: 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 2240D3A690E; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:19:52 -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 E99D83A6BA9 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:19:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 AAOLSld4eZRG for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DEE3A68FC for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:18:55 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Rb4ru8Uw9m74lwk3Yi9D6f5GKj2NEhgdNmzskR55vre78D4pTD0UHHIqy72mC8iK; h=Received:Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:Organization:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [24.23.176.93] (helo=tsg1) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K3kSd-0002Xg-GR; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:18:55 -0400 Message-ID: <023401c8c5fa$6c540280$6401a8c0@tsg1> From: "TS Glassey" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "TS Glassey" , "IETF Discussion" References: <000b01c8c4d4$b94273f0$0200a8c0@tsg1> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FF914@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminallyprosecutable in nature... Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:21:09 -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: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79c770e8dbbf552e8cf39937c0d6e21572350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 24.23.176.93 Cc: Harald Alvestrand X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: TS Glassey List-Id: IETF Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0786599416==" Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0786599416== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0231_01C8C5BF.BE078B50" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0231_01C8C5BF.BE078B50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be = criminallyprosecutable in nature...Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't = change anything. Todd ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip=20 To: TS Glassey ; IETF Discussion=20 Cc: Harald Alvestrand=20 Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:49 AM Subject: RE: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may = becriminallyprosecutable in nature... Todd, This is nonsense, stop it. Of course IETF communications could give rise to the posibility of = criminal prosecutions in certain circumstances. The IESG could in theory = plot a murder. That does not mean that every legal concotion you imagine is backed = by criminal sanctions. On the contrary, conspiracy is only a crime if = the object of the conspiracy is criminal. Depriving someone of their 'right' to flame in an Internet forum = might under certain circumstances give rise to civil liability. But the = right of standards bodies to impose reasonable participation criteria is = well established in US law. The participation criteria in the IETF are = considerably more inclusive than in OASIS, W3C or IEEE. There is a place for this argument - alt.flame -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of TS Glassey Sent: Mon 02/06/2008 1:17 PM To: IETF Discussion Cc: Harald Alvestrand Subject: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be = criminallyprosecutable in nature... 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ------=_NextPart_000_0231_01C8C5BF.BE078B50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I mentioned once that certain actions of = the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable in nature...
Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't change = anything.
 
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Hallam-Baker,=20 Phillip
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 = 11:49=20 AM
Subject: RE: I mentioned once = that=20 certain actions of the IETF may becriminallyprosecutable in = nature...

Todd,
 
   This is = nonsense, stop=20 it.
 
   Of course IETF = communications could give rise to the posibility of criminal = prosecutions in=20 certain circumstances. The IESG could in theory plot a=20 murder.
 
   That does not = mean that=20 every legal concotion you imagine is backed by criminal sanctions. On = the=20 contrary, conspiracy is only a crime if the object of the conspiracy = is=20 criminal.
 
   Depriving = someone of their=20 'right' to flame in an Internet forum might under certain = circumstances give=20 rise to civil liability. But the right of standards bodies to impose=20 reasonable participation criteria is well established in US law. The=20 participation criteria in the IETF are considerably more inclusive = than in=20 OASIS, W3C or IEEE.
 
   There is a = place for this=20 argument - alt.flame

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on = behalf of TS=20 Glassey
Sent: Mon 02/06/2008 1:17 PM
To: IETF=20 Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Subject: I = mentioned once=20 that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable in=20 nature...

I brought this up a number of times and Harald's = solution was=20 to ban me from
the list. Something that under the US CFAA is=20 prosecutable... His claim was
that I failed to show him the money - = that=20 special case which establishes
that as a standard.

OK Harald = - the=20 case you want to see is called "The United States v Drew"
and was = filed in=20 the District Court of the Central District of California
(i.e. LA). = What it=20 says is that any communications taking place between two
parties = across a=20 State Line may constitute. I am sending you a copy of = that
indictment and=20 the CFAA text under separate cover since its 1/2MB. How it
plays = out is=20 that:

    1)    An act of = Conspiracy=20 under the terms of the Conspiracy Statute in
the US is what happens = when=20 multiple people agree on something across an
electronic transport = whether=20 in real-time or time-shifted in nature. The
question is whether = that is a=20 conspiracy to hurt people or their rights in
which case its an = issue, or a=20 conspiracy to get together for a dinner party
which then would be = totally=20 cool one would think.

    2)    A = violation of both civil and criminal statutes of the US = Computer
Fraud and=20 Abuse Act (per the definition in section (a)(2)(B) of a = 'Federal
Interest=20 Computer'.

Unfortunately this makes all of the covert = negotiations for=20 PR and other
actions a crime in the US by my reading. Also one = which the=20 IETF and its
Management including its chair and all AD's and WG = Chairs are=20 liable under.
I think it also makes key parts of the IETF = document/IP=20 submission process
possibly criminally prosecutable as well. Jorge = - Any=20 thoughts as the IETF's
Attorney?

As to what to do about this = - I=20 suggest that its time for a set of lawyers
who are not retained and = paid by=20 the IETF to formally review the IETF's
processes for conflicts and = flaws=20 therein.

regards,
Todd Glassey CISM=20 CIFI

_______________________________________________
IETF = mailing=20 list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing = = list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------=_NextPart_000_0231_01C8C5BF.BE078B50-- --===============0786599416== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --===============0786599416==--