Subject: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminally prosecutable in nature...

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:17:16 -0700

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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:49:57 -0700

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: [email-masked] 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...

regards,
Todd Glassey CISM CIFI

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:21:09 -0700

I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable in nature...Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't change anything.

Todd
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
  To: TS Glassey ; IETF Discussion 
  Cc: Harald Alvestrand 
  Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:49 AM
  Subject: RE: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminallyprosecutable in nature...

  Todd,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: [email-masked] 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...

  regards,
  Todd Glassey CISM CIFI

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:31:22 +0200

--On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey 
<[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:50:42 -0700

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?

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.

---

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:16:02 -0700

Fred - your funny...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may 
becriminally prosecutable in nature...

> 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?
                                                                             
> 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???.

---

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:07:26 -0700

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" <[email-masked]>
To: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
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...
>