Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2004 16:11:13 -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
These issues relate to public safety and are irrelevant to the issue of
evidence-based statements about the behavior of those responsible
for certain IP addresses.
The point is the law recognizes the general concept of liability for
inducing another to act.
The law recognizes the _specific_ case of public safety in the case you
cited ("no right to shout fire in a crowded theater"). Don't read any
more in to it.
Anyway I repeat that this is irrelevant to the prospect of litigation against
a blacklist or any organization which legitimizes blacklists for purposes of
public convenience. A blacklist does not _induce_ anyone to do anything (in
a legal
sense which means to offer an incentive). A blacklist just publishes
facts (presumptively). If they are not facts, and someone is injured,
then that is actionable as it should be. It has nothing to do with us.
Allow me to give another example. There is a proposal in SMTP-VERIFY
subgroup floated about a month ago by Mark Baugher. It proposes a
standard set of formats and protocols for letting an MTA publish
statistical information about other MTAs it knows, similar to what
SenderBase does today. This would enable an ISP like AOL or The World
publish statistical information about the MTAs that exchange mail with
it such as average volume per day, how long it had been known, etc. This
data can be used in the filtering process - e.g. if the MTA is well
known, it is less likely that it is a zombie.
Would you say that publishing such data puts the MTA operator at a legal
liability just because others would use it?
Yakov
--
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"And this too shall come to pass"
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg