NODE a2a9c0deThe OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
zinc <zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 04:57:47 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
cpunks,
regarding this paper; it's sent out by an autoresponder. is it illegal
to make excessive use of the autoresponder? this would be a type of
denial of service attack.
i'm wondering if i set up a cron job to request a copy every 5 or 10
minutes and just send it to /dev/nul, could i get in more trouble than
say, someone just telling me to cut it out?
opinions?
- -pjf
"Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773)
finger for PGP key
zifi runs LINUX 1.3.57 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by mkpgp1.6, a Pine/PGP interface.
iQCVAwUBMRe7B03Qo/lG0AH5AQF6KwP/XAQq4yoi0Ytetl6rUnnCJBvbNktRmSEP
3D+ILw4+qn4YDQX96Q6+SoGYD/9zHu59ywFWk42hYCXYNhOpo+GBTF9uGWIb5lD6
/DdzSLDpCKUvggmI395STqoEBuKj5ILSGBzDZGfnw6g6IAcJIRwnwiE/MhLjgKof
2S0mWLFc4aQ=
=+twb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
NODE bda7fce5Re: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:10:54 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, zinc wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> regarding this paper; it's sent out by an autoresponder. is it illegal
> to make excessive use of the autoresponder? this would be a type of
> denial of service attack.
>
> i'm wondering if i set up a cron job to request a copy every 5 or 10
> minutes and just send it to /dev/nul, could i get in more trouble than
> say, someone just telling me to cut it out?
Regardless of the legal merits, this would be called "being an asshole."
The guy who runs mailback.com is just another common carrier.
- -rich
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMRfFJI3DXUbM57SdAQFXwQQAn1IQKS6uU2MVWZbePCG1D19lmVKfBzry
L9rxdcEXCoHDpSlyqdIiv7b2SJ2PzRj8aB9p2sA1F8lyaiO4xj+21YJE/RBQ6vi7
J/VwcO6ZCvJ8Wqq6SHU+HqeuCRqV2SR/WWZtdryZGRCOeT2zVeawOlu9qxMygcgF
bsWXUea2A/k=
=/aC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
NODE c9d55de5Re: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
lmccarth@cs.umass.eduWed, 7 Feb 1996 06:13:34 +0800
zinc writes:
> regarding this [OCAF] paper; it's sent out by an autoresponder. is it
> illegal to make excessive use of the autoresponder? this would be a type
> of denial of service attack.
IMHO scared closed-minded folks such as (apparently) OCAF have every right to
speak too. But on the advice of counsel ;) I am _not_ offering to run an
OCAFmirror hereabouts....
-Lewis "Don't believe the church and state, and everything they tell you"
--Mike & the Mechanics
NODE 41c767eaRe: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:17:56 +0800
On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, zinc wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> regarding this paper; it's sent out by an autoresponder. is it illegal
> to make excessive use of the autoresponder? this would be a type of
> denial of service attack.
>
> i'm wondering if i set up a cron job to request a copy every 5 or 10
> minutes and just send it to /dev/nul, could i get in more trouble than
> say, someone just telling me to cut it out?
This would be bad, but
TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW!!! The fun starts about a page down.
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton/noporn.html
Whoever "DWF" is deserves a medal.
-rich
NODE 6204eceeYes, I'm an idiot Re: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:25:53 +0800
I'd thought that this was a "friendly" site that had been hacked. It's
not. But the comments are pretty funny regardless.
-rich
On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, zinc wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > regarding this paper; it's sent out by an autoresponder. is it illegal
> > to make excessive use of the autoresponder? this would be a type of
> > denial of service attack.
> >
> > i'm wondering if i set up a cron job to request a copy every 5 or 10
> > minutes and just send it to /dev/nul, could i get in more trouble than
> > say, someone just telling me to cut it out?
>
> This would be bad, but
>
> TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW!!! The fun starts about a page down.
>
> http://www.bway.net/~dfenton/noporn.html
>
> Whoever "DWF" is deserves a medal.
>
> -rich
NODE 2a69b85dRe: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:28:54 +0800
zinc wrote:
| i'm wondering if i set up a cron job to request a copy every 5 or 10
| minutes and just send it to /dev/nul, could i get in more trouble than
| say, someone just telling me to cut it out?
I think that they would try to press charges under the precedent that
a guys modem auto-dialing Jerry Falwell's number was forced to make
restitution. (Forget the reference, sorry.)
The important difference is that they probably are not being billed on
a per transaction basis, whereas 800 numbers are billed per call.
Would they sue? Can you sell a jury on the essential difference being
that they were not billed per copy mailed? I'd expect that they'd
react with a 'cut it out' message first.
Adam
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
NODE f82387fdRe: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
"David J. Bianco" <bianco@itribe.net>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:50:38 +0800
On Feb 6, 16:44, Adam Shostack sent the following to the NSA's mail archives:
> Subject: Re: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
|| zinc wrote:
||
|| | i'm wondering if i set up a cron job to request a copy every 5 or 10
|| | minutes and just send it to /dev/nul, could i get in more trouble than
|| | say, someone just telling me to cut it out?
||
|| I think that they would try to press charges under the precedent that
|| a guys modem auto-dialing Jerry Falwell's number was forced to make
|| restitution. (Forget the reference, sorry.)
||
|| The important difference is that they probably are not being billed on
|| a per transaction basis, whereas 800 numbers are billed per call.
|| Would they sue? Can you sell a jury on the essential difference being
|| that they were not billed per copy mailed? I'd expect that they'd
|| react with a 'cut it out' message first.
||
And then they would, of course, use the inflated "hit" count as proof positive
that the Internet citizenry is on their side!
--
==========================================================================
David J. Bianco | Web Wonders, Online Oddities, Cool Stuff
iTribe, Inc. | Phone: (804) 446-9060 Fax: (804) 446-9061
Suite 1700, World Trade Center | email: <bianco@itribe.net>
Norfolk, VA 23510 | URL : http://www.itribe.net/~bianco/
NODE 109b8b7eRe: The OCAF's White Paper on Internet Pornography
zinc <zinc@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:11:18 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
howdy folks,
it's been pointed out to me that the attack i mentioned would be unfair
to others who use this ISP. i will not be doing any mass mailing and i
suggest others refrain from doing so as well.
the document is good reading, although it does hurt your head if you've
had any logic at all. i guess those years of debate weren't for nothing
after all...
- -pat finerty
biochem grad student
"Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773)
finger for PGP key
zifi runs LINUX 1.3.57 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by mkpgp1.6, a Pine/PGP interface.
iQCVAwUBMRfao03Qo/lG0AH5AQEItwQAk8V6LlIfLEKA+HgvyseAVZcWaNgnGvzP
Yduj9cs6eQYE64uaccYWsmHFLg1I/VlxyuF/FOh658xPDgSYUDFPPYRJB/fZhQfz
ga6cQ5CbOaRiGY/7H2fdoUn5Y0kG35hfZ6LYg0EARgo4BphtNSFdTg9TGECdlAsE
5MmwIxUumDA=
=jk9n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----