RE: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable in nature...

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:49:57 -0700

Title: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable in nature...

Todd,

   This is nonsense, stop it.

   Of course IETF communications could give rise to the posibility of criminal prosecutions in certain circumstances. The IESG could in theory plot a murder.

   That does not mean that every legal concotion you imagine is backed by criminal sanctions. On the contrary, conspiracy is only a crime if the object of the conspiracy is criminal.

   Depriving someone of their 'right' to flame in an Internet forum might under certain circumstances give rise to civil liability. But the right of standards bodies to impose reasonable participation criteria is well established in US law. The participation criteria in the IETF are considerably more inclusive than in OASIS, W3C or IEEE.

   There is a place for this argument - alt.flame

From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of TS Glassey
Sent: Mon 02/06/2008 1:17 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Subject: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable in nature...

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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf