Unruh wrote: > "Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> writes: > >> Unruh wrote: >>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> Tim Shoppa wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 10:47 pm, [email protected] (Danny Mayer) wrote: >>>>>> Antonio, >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are really from nic.br please use your email address from that >>>>>> domain. It is unacceptable to use a gmail account for such notifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> Danny >>>>> This is usenet, where anyone can set their "from" address to anything >>>>> they want, and posting with an E-mail address that is adequately spam- >>>>> filtered makes perfect sense. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure there's any real requirement that anyone has to announce >>>>> any particular e-mail address to run a NTP survey. He made the >>>>> methodology clear, said where the queries will be coming from, and I >>>>> think it's good that surveys continue and, like Antonio and his >>>>> collaborators do, they make the details and results public. >>>>> >>>>> Tim. >>>> There is no requirement that he even announce his survey! It is polite >>>> for him to do so but no more than that. >>> Well, Under various laws he may be guilty of hacking/cracking/illegal use >>> fo computer time/... unless he gets permission. There has at least been a > >> You might have a hell of a time prosecuting him! Whatever the laws in >> YOUR jurisdiction, HE is NOT in your jurisdiction. Prosecution, if any, >> would have to be under the laws of Brazil. > > No. The crime would have been committed in Canada and the prosecution would > occur here. Now if he never came to Canada, prosection might be difficult > (probably not extradictable, and anyway, damages so small that it would not > be worth it). Remember the Russian programer who was arrested when he > visited the US because he wrote a program to unencrypt a horrendously > simple (Ceasar cypher type) encryption on Adobe e books. He spent a few > weeks in jail. And Brazilian law may contain such idiocies as well. > > Note that this would be a criminal, not civil tort. I would not prosecute > him, the state would. > > > >> Even if he were in your jurisdiction, you would probably be laughed out >> of court if you brought an action against him for stealing two >> milliseconds of your computer time! > > Almost all of the prosecutions for such things should have been laughed out > of court but have not been. In US jurisdictions, the 10 hours at $500 /hr I > spent trying to figure out what he did have been counted as valid damages > in figuring out the impact of people's behaviour. > > >> If you want to "tilt at windmills", try fighting the spammers! For that >> matter, try enforcing the "National Do Not Call List". It hasn't >> stopped my phone from ringing. . . . > > I agree. I have no desire to tilt at any windmills. What I was pointing out > was that the claim that they did not have to announce their research but > could simply run their survey may in fact be wrong in law. > >
An interesting legal theory! I'm not familiar with Canadian law but I doubt that such an action could be successfully pursued in the U.S. If the survey worries you, just block port 123 at your firewall! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
