On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuc...@outlook.com> wrote: > I've been told that in California it is really illegal to block IP addresses > without a court order. Any Californians available to confirm that? > > "The sender of information over the Internet is the "owner" of both the > information and the IP address attached to the information. ... " > > Source: > http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com.br/2007/05/ip-address-blocking-is-illegal-in.html
Way late responding to this (Carlos, I think it's a whole pile of your posts that are only just coming through), but this is patently false. The sender of information is NOT the owner of the IP address. IANA does not sell IP addresses, it allocates them. There is nothing *owned*. This became significant last year when IPv4 depletion made the netblock market wake up dramatically; while it *is* acceptable for money to change hands as part of a netblock transfer arrangement, those IP addresses are *not* a saleable item per se, and transfers *must* be approved by IANA. (For instance, if you own a /28 out of a /8 assigned to APNIC, you can't sell that to someone in Europe, because that would make a mess of core routing tables. Allocations to the five RIRs are always on the basis of /8 blocks.) The Californian legislators can't change that any more than they can legislate that one of their citizens owns Alpha Centauri. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
