On Friday 31 October 2003 09:17 am, Tango Echo wrote: > Yes, I do actually. Bryan, your problem is you are too > rational =). In this upside down world we live in, and > an even more more upside down US legal system (plz, no > OT flames) anything is possible. I've heard of cases > where a theif fell thru a skylight window, injuried > himself, sued the intended victim and won. While I > suspect that is probably an urban legend I totally > believe it is possible...
Anything is possible. However, we need to gauge our actions based on what is probable. I don't think that qualifies. > Ah! Here is the reference: http://www.hackbusters.net > While it's possible it may deal directly with his > LaBrea tar pit program, it appears to hinge around the > tar pit technology. Here's a quote from the site: > Quote: > > This section of the Illinois Criminal Code was added > on January 1, 2003 by Public Act 92-728 and defines an > "unlawful communication device" as "any communication > device which is capable of... facilitating the > disruption... of a communication service without the > express consent or express authorization of the > communication service provider..." Well, I am not a resident of Illinois, therefore, this particular criminal code does not apply to me. Also, as written, it is not usable against a honeypot. If you are running the honeypot, you are the communication service provider, therefore, you have given yourself express authorization. If you are the spammer, you are not the service provider, but instead are the service taker, and you are the one that does NOT have express consent or authorization. The operator of a mail server is the provider. > It furthermore makes it a criminal offense if a person > knowingly "possesses, uses, manufactures, assembles, > distributes, leases, transfers, or sells" an "unlawful > communication device... for the commission of a theft > of a communication service or to receive, disrupt, > transmit, decrypt, or acquire... any communication > service without the express consent or express > authorization of the communication service provider, > or to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any > communication service provider or from any lawful > authority the existence or place of origin or > destination of any communication". I think that you need to reread the "for the commission of a theft of a communication service" portion again. A spammer, by definition is committing a theft of service and meets all the definitions of this act. So, he is going to press criminal charges against you for committing an act identical to his own? A drug dealer pressing charges against another drug dealer for dealing drugs? Not only that but criminal charges must be prosecuted by the State, not by a private entity, so there is no way that a spammer can sue you for a violation of criminal law, only for a tort. > LaBrea both disrupts communication and conceals the > true origin of communication in an attempt to protect > a network from attack. If you are currently running > LaBrea, I would suggest that you look into the > legality of having an operating network tarpit in your > state. > > ...Not to encouraging, eh ? =/ This program sounds > nice too... Someone's paranoid reading of the law in a way that suits their fantasy. Again, this is defined as "unlawful communication device" "for the commission of a theft of service." A tarpit or honeypot does not commit a theft of service, is falsely proposes to provide a service. That is a very different thing. -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
