funsec mailing list archives
Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
From: Rob Thompson <my.security.lists () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:08:55 -0700
Gadi Evron wrote:
Jury Exacts $32M Penalty From ISPs For Supporting Criminal Websites http://darkreading.com/securityservices/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml 'Landmark case' indicates that ISPs may be held liable if they know about criminal activity on their customers' Websites and fail to act A federal jury in California this week levied a total of $32 million in damages from two Internet service providers that knowingly supported Websites that were running illegal operations. In a lawsuit brought by fashion company Louis Vuitton, a jury ruled that two ISPs -- Akanoc Solutions and Managed Solutions Group -- knew about counterfeit Vuitton goods that were being sold on their customers' sites, but didn't act quickly to pull the plug on those sites. The decision was first reported on Tuesday. The ruling has been called a landmark decision by some legal experts, who note that ISPs historically have been protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which limits service providers' liability for criminal actions that take place on their networks.
Way to go...way to go after the _real_ criminal. This is akin to closing down a freaking bank, because they cashed a fraudulent check.
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
-- Rob +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | _ | | ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) | | - against HTML email X | | / \ | | | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Gadi Evron (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Gadi Evron (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? G. D. Fuego (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul Ferguson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul Ferguson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)