Fred - Here is the deal... What I said is that under section (a)(2)(B) of
the FEDERAL INTEREST COMPUTER definition section of the CFAA itself, that
any two parties involved in any interstate interchange or a single
interchange which crosses State borders, is prosecutable under the CFAA,
both by individuals as civil matters and then criminally by Federal and
State LE...
So Email across a state line works just fine for this. What that means to
the IETF is simple...
1) The IETF uses a distributed communications system which includes
conversations and electronic engineering sessions * (what I will call the
vetting process - i.e. that IP which is covered by NoteWell). Many of the
participants in this "IP generation process" are spread out across multiple
states and countries.
2) And its worth noting that
a) US citizens are constrained by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
so where ever they are, they are constrained by US law as are others who
would periodically enter the US...
That means they cannot go to Europe and break those laws or Asia either. It
also means that they cannot break those same laws no matter where they are
if those servers are located outside of the US Jurisdiction, that's just the
law.
b) US citizens are also constrained also by the US conspiracy statute
and the CFAA no matter where they physically are. Likewise with claims
against them under the Stored Communications Act in addition to a couple of
others.
----- Original Message -----
From: "TSG" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Fred Baker" <fred@xxxxxxxxx>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF
maybecriminally prosecutable in nature...
> Fred - you are truly funny...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Baker" <fred@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may
> becriminally prosecutable in nature...
>
>
>> So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not
>> constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if
>> someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses
>> it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a
>> member of the discussion forum - and the bully lives in the City of
>> Dardenne Prairie or more generally the State of Missouri, which have
>> enacted statutes since the girl's death. Is that correct?
>
> no Fred - I suggest that per the description of a FEDERAL INTEREST
> COMPUTER
> in the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that any instance where IETF
> member's converse with each other electronically about how they are going
> prevent anyone else's effort from being submitted, or vetted and advanced,
> or prevent that person from participating in the IETF through the PR
> process, that those actions DO constitute criminal and civilly acitonable
> ones.
>
> In your case as an IESG member they also constitute a Fiduciary
> Responsibility violations too...
>
> And so - you know that meeting with Cisco's GC I kept talking about, I am
> available all next week and since my office is about 5 files down First
> Street from your legal department this is a no brainer eh?
>
> >
>> I don't plan to comment further in this thread. In fact, had you and
>> Philip not replied, I would not have been aware of it. To my mind, my
>> stance is a very appropriate one.
>
> yes - you are intentionally denying that certain US Laws apply to the
> IETF's
> operations and that is simply not true. The IETF is constrained by US law
> whether its in the US or not based on that all US participants would be
> tied
> to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
>
> So again, lets ask Mark Chambers what he thinks of this OK???.
>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey
>>> <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I believe I told you to show competent legal advice saying that
>>> what you
>>> were posting was relevant to the IETF.
>>>
>>> I have read your provided material, and fail to see any sign of such
>>> competent legal advice; no name but your own is attached to the
>>> claim of
>>> relevance.
>>>
>>> (for those who wonder what case it is, it is
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier>.)
>>>
>>> Harald
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IETF mailing list
>>> IETF@xxxxxxxx
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf