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

[information]

its a free speech issue - youre asking for IMs opinion on wether an email
sender is spam or not.  they finally came to the conclusion all of it is.
look at this way they where giving you 100% spam detection.

after this time (of an RBL doing this) i am
1. signing up for their email lists if they have one
2. writing a script to check spam detection rates and page me if things go
hairwire

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eagle Net Support" <support at EAGLE-ACCESS.NET>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: culpability of Infinite-Monkey (was) Infinite Monkeys and other
BLs {Scanned} {Scanned}


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.