---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: owner-crime@private
To: crime-approval@private
Subject: BOUNCE crime@private: Non-member submission from [Charlie
Schluting <manos@private>]
>From crime-approval@private Tue Sep 21 14:53:14 2004
Received: from mailhost.schluting.com (postfix@private [131.252.214.57])
by iron.cat.pdx.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i8LLr4nU016513
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL)
for <crime@private>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailhost.schluting.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E77520F0
for <crime@private>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.schluting.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (schluting.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
id 36225-08 for <crime@private>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [131.252.209.122] (smelly.cat.pdx.edu [131.252.209.122])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mailhost.schluting.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7092820A3
for <crime@private>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4150A2B4.3000705@private>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:52:52 -0700
From: Charlie Schluting <manos@private>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040519)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CRIME <crime@private>
Subject: Re: CRIME wireless case study URLs?
References: <CD4AC35DACC1D44B8E2CBA2B6E6D3BE90347CD6B@private> <4150A05C.4030802@private>
In-Reply-To: <4150A05C.4030802@private>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.0.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Crispin Cowan wrote:
> Which brings us back to the question of Joe's intent. There exist real
> scenarios in which someone like Joe explicitly intends to grant
> wide-open access, and the ISP's TOS permit exactly that. But what is the
> legal status of a war driver if they don't actually know that to be the
> case?
>
I thought the same thing as you, when I first read the law. "Its only
theft of service if the person is providing that service.." isn't the
intent of the law. This became a tiny bit clearer after reading and
rereading the 2nd part that defines a "service".
A war driver is no different from the trench to my neighbor's cable box.
Both (I believe) are covered by this law. You're using a service that
someone else paid for... it doesn't matter that the person isn't a
company who provides said service.
-Charlie
P.S. I don't really have a trench to my neighbor's cable box. He doesn't
have the good movie channels.
</de-lurking>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Sep 22 2004 - 16:58:16 PDT