Re: Usenet allowed from work?
- From: "Chilly8" <chilly8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:33:31 -0700
"Walter Roberson" <roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In article <f888ob$q3k$1@xxxxxxxx>, Chilly8 <chilly8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.
That's like saying that if your front door lock is pickable by
the properly shaped jimmy, that unlocking it is not a crime.
But they do NOT have to use ANY circumvention tools, or
"pick" ANY electronic locks.
Have another look at my prior posting today. USC 18 1030(a).
Exceeding authorized access is a US Criminal Offence. "Authorized
access" is defined by the company published security policy, not
by which technical measures can be sidestepped.
But they do NOT *HAVE* to sidestep ANY technical measures on
their part. I have already done FOR them by creating a subdomain
and pointing it at the IP assigned to my radio station. Since they
are not using ANY circumvention tools WHATSOEVER to
sidstep ANY tehnical measures. All they have to do is start
their web browser (or the Radio 365 player, if they have it
installed), and just "plug and play", as they say. *I* have done
the work of subverting most filtering systems with my subdomain
trick. Because Live 365 does sometimes randomly assign you
to another IP, I just have to keep on top of that, and redirect
my subdomain, as is needed
To "exceed authorised access", you would have to do something
like break a passoword to get it. If what you are doing is NOT
password-protected, then "exceeding authorised access" DOES
NOT APPLY. If the filteirng software fails to do its job, then
you CANNOT be charged with a crime, becuase it would be
assumed to be authorised access. The law ONLY applies if
you gain access to a site that you KNOW has been blocked.
If the site is acessible WITHOUT the use of open proxies,
anonymity services, or ANY circumvention tools, then it
is considered authorised, under the law, and is NOT subject
to ANY criminal or civil liabiliy.
Just like if you have an open relay on your computer, and someone
uses it to do something illegal, it is YOU that will be in trouble for
it. Why? Becusae you have an access point that is NOT password
protected, then it is considered PUBLIC under the law, and
YOU are legally reposible if someone does something illegal through
your computer. That is the one risk of having open relays on your
Right now I am sitting back and ENJOYING the increased listenership
to my radio network that my IP trick has created, NO circumvention
of technical measures needed on the part of the user, so NO risk of
civil or criminal liability to the user.