Re: [ga] Quick Question/different answer

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 03:40 PM 10/2/00 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:

>On the other hand, there seems to be a hijacking in progress, taking 
>people where they do not want to go in
>order to give them information which they do not want to receive, using 
>facilities the offender does not own. I don't think that is protected 
>speech.  Nor am I convinced it should be.

[..]

>While no one is likely to suffer enough damage to have standing to sue, 
>civilly, such redirection may be a
>form of theft of service or other computer crime which would qualify for 
>governmental intervention.  A list of
>potentially applicable laws may be found at 
><http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html>.   The FBI is jumping all
>over complaints of high-tech abuse like a kid playing with a new 
>toy.  This might get someone's attention.

Let me get this straight. If someone obtains and pays for a domain name 
(domain A) which contains a string of characters which could, under the 1st 
Amendment, be used as an alternative description to a different domain name 
(domain B), you are saying that the holder of domain A is committing a 
crime by pointing or redirecting domain name A to domain name B? How can 
theft of service exist if the DNS records and content behind domain B are 
available unhindered and unaltered?


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html