By Al Iverson
Spam Policy Enforcement Director and Deliverability Consultant
January 16, 2008 Views: 145,106 Comments: 32
...WAY wrong. This is just mind blowing.
Boo HOO Al, Ritz had no right to post the data, he is a trespasser and a hacker, are you a hacker too Al?
Ever been prosecuted for tracking spam? Running a traceroute? Doing a zone transfer? Asking a public internet server for public information that it is configured to provide upon demand?
David Ritz is the only one I know of who was charged and had to pay 60,000 grand. He posted it, David you cannot post private data to the internet without it going so wrong for you..
No? Well, David Ritz has. And amazingly, he lost the case.
You were amazed because you are part of the same gang, I have read everything about the case and Ritz failed to understand privacy rights.
Then he ignored a court order. Then he was taken to court and lost.
Thanks Jerry that win was for me too.
Here are just a few of the gems that the court has the audacity to call “conclusions of law.” Read them while you go donate to David’s legal defense fund. He got screwed here, folks, and needs your help.
No, he was too dumb to follow basic life rules, Everyone has a right to privacy, in fact its one of the founding principles of life..
I have a right to privacy and it was stripped by darclylaroseottawa@gmail, aka Scoville, but Scoville is long gone as an alias, the colonel is gone as an alias, checkmate is gone as an alias..
“Ritz’s behavior in conducting a zone transfer was unauthorized within the meaning of the North Dakota Computer Crime Law.”
Ritz’ was also unauthorized to hack my life?
How did Ritz every hear my name?
You might not know what a zone transfer is, but I do. It’s asking a DNS server for all the particular public info it provides about a given domain. This is a common task performed by system administrators for many purposes. The judge is saying thatDNS zone transfers are now illegal in North Dakota.
No, dumbass, he published information that does not belong to him..its called a DOX..
“The Court rejects the test for “authorization” articulated by defendant’s expert, Lawrence Baldwin.
To find all access “authorized” which is successful would essentially turn the computer crime laws of this country upside down.
” That’s untrue. The judge is trying to hang David out to dry, even when provided evidence of what actually constitutes hacking or cracking. Accessing a server on the public internet that is set up to provide that public info is not a crime, andsaying that it is not a crime doesn’t suddenly damage computer crime law.
She saw him right away, women have a way with identify abusers, its all our instincts, but she had to follow the rule of law not her gut
The judge just amended the definition of “unauthorized” to include public internet servers that were expressly configured to provide info to anybody who asks for that info.m not touching the “hijacking computers” statement—who knows what the judge means, and I don’t think it’s wise to assume that the judge’s definition matches the common one. But what really jumps out here is this: Publication of WHOIS
“Ritz has engaged in a variety of activities without authorization on the Internet. Those activities include port scanning, hijacking computers, and the compilation and publication of Whois lookups without authorization from Network Solutions.” I’
Mickey Chandler calls the court documents in this case “12 pages of bad law,” and I couldn’t agree more.
By Al Iverson, Spam Policy Enforcement Director and Deliverability Consultant
Al was also the first person to post about Rachel Ben Levi, Al forgot to not post in the same was as Rachel.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 498 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 65:55:04 |
Calls: | 9,813 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,754 |
Messages: | 6,189,266 |