I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to ban me from
the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable... His claim was
that I failed to show him the money - that special case which establishes
that as a standard.
OK Harald - the case you want to see is called "The United States v Drew"
and was filed in the District Court of the Central District of California
(i.e. LA). What it says is that any communications taking place between two
parties across a State Line may constitute. I am sending you a copy of that
indictment and the CFAA text under separate cover since its 1/2MB. How it
plays out is that:
1) An act of Conspiracy under the terms of the Conspiracy Statute in
the US is what happens when multiple people agree on something across an
electronic transport whether in real-time or time-shifted in nature. The
question is whether that is a conspiracy to hurt people or their rights in
which case its an issue, or a conspiracy to get together for a dinner party
which then would be totally cool one would think.
2) A violation of both civil and criminal statutes of the US Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (per the definition in section (a)(2)(B) of a 'Federal
Interest Computer'.
Unfortunately this makes all of the covert negotiations for PR and other
actions a crime in the US by my reading. Also one which the IETF and its
Management including its chair and all AD's and WG Chairs are liable under.
I think it also makes key parts of the IETF document/IP submission process
possibly criminally prosecutable as well. Jorge - Any thoughts as the IETF's
Attorney?
As to what to do about this - I suggest that its time for a set of lawyers
who are not retained and paid by the IETF to formally review the IETF's
processes for conflicts and flaws therein.
regards,
Todd Glassey CISM CIFI
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf