[plug] Re: Doing Jeremy's work for him

[Simon Scott]

On Wednesday 05 June 2002 1:47 pm, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 June 2002 12:13, Peter Wright wrote:
> > On 05/06 10:55:04, Simon Scott wrote:
> >> People buy bandwidth, not a guarantee that a packet entering network A
> >> will make it out the other end to Network B etc.
> >
> > Well, perhaps not a guarantee - of course the administrator(s) of Network
> > B could just refuse everything from Network A if they felt like it. A
> > person living in Network A who doesn't have any legal link to Network B
> > simply has no grounds to force Network B to accept their traffic.
> >
> > However, if B is refusing traffic from A _and_ makes it clear that they
> > are doing this because A is harbouring spammers - then I would think that
> > the "legitimate" clients of A would have some reasonable legal cause for
> > complaint.
>
> Let's turn up the contrast on this picture.
>
> The Code Octarine worm is released, which resurfaces any Windows box it
> touches with sapient pearwood and causes it to grow legs. People dread
> seeing the Brown Screen Of Death, especially when it has shark teeth
> embedded in it here and there.

I think Windows is scary enough - no need to turn up the contrast on that one

>
> Soon B discovers that A's users and servers are infected with Code
> Octarine. B knows that there is no patch. B blocks traffic from A, buys
> shares in ChiliSoft, starts replacing all of his Windows boxes with a real
> OS, and tells A that the block comes off when no more Code Octarine
> wormsign is seen from A's subnets for a week.
>
> A sues B. With reasonable legal cause?

In my eyes - not in a pink fit. However I have learnt before, never assume 
where legalities are concerned. People being charged with assault when 
someone breaks into their house is always the killer for me.


>
> Cheers, Leon