culpability of Infinite-Monkey (was) Infinite Monkeys and other BLs {Scanned} {Scanned}

Thu Mar 18 05:26:38 GMT 2004

Yes. Lawsuits are always the best answer. Why not
pursue your legal avenues on a full-time basis from
this point forward?

--- Eagle Net Support <support at EAGLE-ACCESS.NET>
wrote:
> Steve Thomas wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:32:02PM -0600, James
> Hammett is rumored to have said:
> > >
> > > There has not been anything posted since then.
> >
> > So you don't research DNSBLs before implementing
> their use? You aren't concerned with reasons an IP
> or range could be listed, how fresh the data is or
> isn't, how much collateral damage a certain BL
> inflicts, etc.?
> >
> > Blindly adding BLs just because the other guy uses
> it is outright negligence. You deserve everything
> you got for doing it. If you *had* researched (i.e.
> visit the home page of) the various BLs you're
> using, you'd have found out about IM shutting down
> before you ever even turned it on.
> 
> This thread has significantly changed my feeling on
> whether or not a suit should be filed against all
> those involved in the sabotage of mail systems
> caused by Infinite-Monkey(‘s) action.
> 
> Culpability does not hinge upon whether or not a fee
> is paid for a service which some are attempting to
> argue here.  Rather it would hinge upon were the
> fiduciary responsibility of Infinite-Monkey lies.  I
> think it is clear that monkey.com has no fiduciary
> obligation in the normal course
> of the service they provided.  Surly the court would
> hold this to be true.  However this is not the
> normal course of service they engaged.  It is the
> deliberate nature of the act that places this in a
> different category.
> 
> For example,  As an ISP I give Johnny a free
> account.  I am going out of business so I post on a
> web site that I am going out of business in five
> months.  I don't send Johnny a piece of mail to that
> effect.  I simply put a Bios Bomb that would attack
> at 2:00 AM and cause harm to his
> computer, to him, and any one else whom might log on
> to my service who had the audacity not to know I was
> going out of business.  I maintain that it is common
> knowledge I'm going out of business because I posted
> it on a web site and therefore it is perfectly
> reasonable to cause harm to
> Johnny because he is obviously an uninformed dumb
> operator of a computer.
> 
> Now, it would be examined by the court what
> reasonable measures were taken by monkey.com to
> inform it's users of a pending change.  To that end,
> is a posting on a web site sufficient?  Additionally
> did that announcement contain the threat of causing
> harm to your systems and that this will
> be done purposefully.  The filers attorney would
> maintain that the degree of expertise of a group
> that could successfully maintain such a
> sophisticated service surely could have taken other
> measures.  For example a simple script could have
> parsed the domain of any of those that logged
> into the list and sent a piece of mail to each
> domains “postmaster” or “abuse” or “support”.   The
> attorneys would argue that monkey.com could have
> turned off the service.  They could have changed the
> IP of the box, or any number of lesser reasonable
> actions.  It is my opinion that a
> court would hold that monkey.com stepped outside the
> lines.  While they may not have a fiduciary
> responsibility in that service,  certainly their
> users would have a fiduciary relationship that
> monkey.com would not deliberately cause harm to it's
> users.
> 
> Again, it's the deliberate nature of the actions
> knowingly and with for thought, with full knowledge
> of what these actions would likely cause by marking
> every piece of mail as spam because they designated
> falsely that every machine in the world was a source
> of spam and its users were
> relying upon that information.
> 
> I would normally forgive and forget something like
> this.  However I've changed my mind on what should
> be done listening to some of the rationalizations
> and justifications developing.  The impugning 
> individuals administration capabilities on such a
> blind side attack is simply wrong.
> These opinions render the actions of monkey.com as
> justified and acceptable and demonstrate, at least
> to some, that a gray area exists here and worse the
> issue is settled and justified.  There is nothing
> gray at all here.  Clearly no one has the right to
> deliberately cause harm to another
> because “they own the list and it's their machine so
> they can do anything they like with their property”.
> 
> People in positions of responsibility are
> maintaining this action is OK.  Whereas there is no
> oversight agency in this matter,  the jurisdiction
> must fall on the court.  I for one don't wish ill
> will upon monkey.com even though I think they were
> totally wrong and I personally as well as
> my official capacity was wronged.  However laws and
> civil positions are maintained not simply to punish
> the guilty, but more importantly to keep others from
> engaging in similar behavior.  For this reason I
> believe action should incur to alleviate any gray
> areas that might seemingly exist
> in some minds and once and for all on this subject,
> demonstrate that no one has the right to cause
> deliberate harm to another.
> 
> I can only hope this was done by some underling of
> this company or whatever they are, and not supported
> by central people there.  At a bare minimum they owe
> an apology to the hundreds of administrators they
> harmed and to the millions of users who placed,
> though misguided, trust in them
> and lost mail.  I would also hope that not too much
> was lost by anyone.
> 
> The courts usually would assign culpability to these
> type situations in the form of percentages. 
> Certainly the admins bear some of that weight. 
> However the deliberate nature of the circumstances
> would outweigh most other concerns and I would
> suspect the court would assign 20% admins and
> 80% monkey.com  due to the intent.  I'm pretty sure
> the court would find malicious intent here.  The
> deliberate nature, at 2:00 AM, knowingly with fore
> thought,  full knowledge of the results on the
> users, and the deliberate placing of fraudulent
> information, etc. etc.  Before you start
> flaming this paralegal  I’d point out I don't write
> case law I only read it.  Don't believe me if you
> must, just get a second opinion.  I'm sure some of
> the legal lists in the news groups would have more
> than one attorney willing to donate some time and
> answer your questions.  I'm sure
> you'll find my legal interpretations of where this
> culpability lies is sound.
> 
> joe
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > --
> > "All truth passes through three stages. First, it
> is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
> > - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com