> > 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.
Good, but you might want to check these states too: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/ > Also, as written, it is > not usable against a > honeypot. I didn't see that - where is it? And how does this pertain to a tar pit? > If you are running the honeypot, you are > the communication service > provider, therefore, you have given yourself express > authorization. As I understand it, the laws are writen losely so that "communication service provider" is left open for interpretation. The ISP is also a communication service provider. Wouldn't you agree? > 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. > The underlying problem isn't "theft of data" but rather running an "a unlawful communication device" (program) tht "distrupts communication and conseals origin of data". > > 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. I agree with you that it may simply be paranoid interpretation... But then again, who's providing goods/serveices/etc and isn't at least slightly paranoid of lawyers? It's almost like you need to adapt the security mentality - "don't assume the probable but rather the possible". Contrary to what it sounds, this isn't a rant on the US legal system. Instead, I'm just tying to get the facts straight here. I've considered implmenting such software in my organization. Fortunately, the orgainization has a lawyer that may be resourceful in this situation. > > -- > Bryan Phinney > Software Test Engineer > Thanks, Tango __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
