On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:56:41PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > It was decided a long time ago that DNS data is public knowledge.
> > Who decided what?
> The IETF. See RFC3833.
An informational RFC that treats the subject only briefly in the
introduction:
While some participants in the meeting were interested in protecting
against disclosure of DNS data to unauthorized parties, the design
team made an explicit decision that "DNS data is `public'", and ruled
all threats of data disclosure explicitly out of scope for DNSSEC.
So they:
1. Are a working group producing an informational RFC, and don't
necessarily represent the view of the IETF as a whole
2. admit that people are interested in protecting against disclosure
3. make the assumption only that such protections are outside of the
scope of DNSSEC, but don't pass any judgement on the concept as a
whole
> http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/JohnLevine
> [...]
>
> I've heard this a lot. In nearly 10 years of calling ISPs a couple
> times a month to remove unlawful blocks (which escalates to lawyers
> about once every 6 months after running into a SORBS-partisan
> sysadmin), no ISP lawyers have ever disagreed.
Ah, so we're talking about blocking packets here...
> Interloc was also dubious. Their view got the company criminal charges
> and a $250,000 fine. The company plead guilty. The IT sysadmin plead
> guilty, and were fined $2100 in a plea deal to testify against
> Councilman. Councilman claimed the sysadmin misled him, told him
> everything was legal and that he didn't order any illegal activity.
> The jury bought it and let Councilman off. They all got fired,
> needless to say.
>
> See also http://www.av8.net/ECPA/USvCouncilman.html
So surely this fine and this case are about the blocking of packets,
right?
</sarcasm>
Having just read the writeup you linked to, this case is _not_ about
blocking communications at all. It is about an ISP copying private mail
of users for its own uses (i.e., wiretapping its users mailboxes).
You attempt to equate such behavior with blocking under 18 USC 2511 by
claiming that both behaviors fall under the term ``intercept'' and cite
your interpretation of Webster's dictionary:
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9801/msg00242.html
However, as Howard Goldstein pointed out at the time, 18 USC 2510
specifically provides the definition of ``intercept'' in this context:
(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents
of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any
electronic, mechanical, or other device.
IOW, it refers only to the _acquisition_ of said communications.
Before you respond, please note that I'm not making an argument as to
whether or blocking DNS is illegal (it is not a topic I have
studied well enough to make such an argument). I am instead making an
argument that the evidence you presented in the mail does not support
the conclusion that such behavior is illegal.
-Peff
|