Re: legalese versus plain english

"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@TORQUE.POTHOLE.COM> Mon, 19 June 2000 11:48 UTC

Message-ID: <200006191126.HAA19563@torque.pothole.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 07:26:23 -0400
Reply-To: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com>
Sender: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com>
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@TORQUE.POTHOLE.COM>
Subject: Re: legalese versus plain english
Comments: To: IETF-RUN <IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com>
To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:20:16 PDT." <4.3.2.20000618221510.02e07100@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>

From:  JC Dill <jcdill@vo.cnchost.com>
Message-ID:   <4.3.2.20000618221510.02e07100@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>
Date:          Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:20:16 -0700
To:  IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com

>Sigh.
>
>How do we reconcile the legal issue of "trespass does not mean theft" with
>our need to strongly and clearly state that unauthorized use of an ISP's
>servers (or relay rape of private business servers) is in violation of many
>various municipality laws and can cause the spammer serious legal
>consequences?  I just don't see how:
>
>spamming often constitutes an
                            ^^
                            a

> >             unlawful use of private property and is actionable
                ^^^^^^^^                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                criminal                             can rsult in

> >             as trespass to chattels
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                fine, imprisonment, and civil lawsuits for damanges

>
>meets our need to scare spammers away from doing this illegal act.  The
>legalese way of saying this isn't going to get through the brain of anyone
>who is contemplating this illegal act.
>
>I'd appreciate some ideas, as my legal resources are pretty time
>constrained and can't really be utilized repeatedly until we have a better
>idea how we might be wording this to meet our needs, and their legal viewpoint.

How about changes along the line of those above?

Donald

>jc
>
>
>
> >From: David
> >To: "'JC Dill'" <jcdill@vo.cnchost.com>
> >
> >I still think it's overstated.  Trespass does not mean theft.  It means
> >unauthorized use causing damage.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill@vo.cnchost.com]
> >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:09 AM
> >To: David
> >Subject: RE: Re: New draft to read
> >
> >
> >On 04:55 PM 6/15/00, David wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Can you make any suggestion as to how to word it to be most
> > >effective in dissuading people who are considering spamming,
> > >while being legally accurate?  Would saying "tantamount to theft
> > >(trespass to chattels)" or "trespass to chattels (tantamount to
> > >theft)" be accurate?
> > >
> > >@@I'd say "it constitutes and unlawful use of private property and is
> > >actionable as trespass to chattels."
> >
> >Does this work?
> >
> >             Civil and Criminal litigation.  In the United States,
> >             (and progressively in other sovereign states), it has
> >             become accepted as fact that the theft-of-service
> >             associated with spamming often constitutes an
> >             unlawful use of private property and is actionable
> >             as trespass to chattels (a legal civil court term
> >             tantamount to "theft") in civil court.
> >

legalese versus plain english JC Dill
Re: legalese versus plain english Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Re: legalese versus plain english Ted Gavin
Re: legalese versus plain english JC Dill
Re: legalese versus plain english Austin Bill-P23393
Re: legalese versus plain english Peter Trapasso
Re: legalese versus plain english Ted Gavin
IETF in San Diego JC Dill