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