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 23:14:48 -0700
Nick FitzGerald wrote:
Rob Thompson wrote:This is akin to closing down a freaking bank, because they cashed a fraudulent check.No -- to stick with your grievously weak analogy, it is much more like very heavily (punitively -- get it?) fining a bank and its manager for repeatedly cashing fraudulent checks _from one known fraudster_.
Point taken. I still do not agree with it. I think that it is a piss poor job on behalf of law enforcement. Get the _one known fraudster_ that is committing the actual act. BEFORE it is permitted to be repeated. Now if the hosting site is hosting (as in advertising, come here to host your illegal warez for $$$) to cater to the criminal, that's another story. But that isn't how I am interpreting this. I am interpreting this as sheer laziness and quite frankly it's rather pathetic. Passing the buck isn't okay. We count on the schools to raise our kids and the ISP to police the interwebs. Bullshit!
If the penalty is enough to actually put the bank out of the business, the other customers move their accounts with that bank to another bank and get on with their lives. AND you can bet that they will be quite a bit more careful in checking out the bona fides and likely business practices when evaluating the prospective banks for that move! Finally, as all that is at issue in this case are just bits at rest on server drives and zipping around fibre and copper circuits, it's much easier and MUCH LESS disruptive to the other customers of the convicted, active, complicit fraud-enabler in the online world than in your bricks-and-mortar bank analogy. If you're going draw analogies, please at least try to make them modestly apposite...
Guns don't kill people, people kill people??? Let's get Remington on the phone. If you didn't sell the gun to the gas station robber, he wouldn't have knocked off those seven petrol stands...
Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ 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)
- 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? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- 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? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)