[WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp

[Jay Litwyn]

For a newcomer to this thread, the abuse is in the what will only stand for 
ten seconds category, and as far as I know, the user was addressed. It is 
probably even hard to be sure that Hanson does not hav accounts that he 
reserves for honest work.

The United States Criminal Code, title 18, section 1030,

I think we would hav trouble demonstrating that wikipedia is protected 
(keyword in the legislation) by anything but tedious labour, and it's also 
hard to show damage in dollar terms, unless all the checkuser clerks are 
paid. I see nothing, because it's legislation geared towards milnet (domains 
ending in .mil). Maybe the secure part of wikipedia would qualify if they 
required bank-signed public keys.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+608+0++%28computer%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281030%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

The search term "computer" should not be necessary, and for some reason, it 
is. If the URL breaks, then start with:

http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

or only the domain name. I do not *think* we hav any basis for criminal 
proceedings. Physical, yes. ISPs, as far as I know, cannot compel read 
access to wikipedia. We don't block reads, either. Writers are about one in 
ten thousand. Hopefully, they know who to complain to at verizon and hav an 
account, already. Then it's just a matter of shutting down Hanson's 
accounts, methinks. The hard question is how long the block should be, for 
me, who is not in a position to make it.

Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) govern the internet, not the CANSPAM act.