funsec mailing list archives
Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:49:50 -0400
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:14:48 PDT, Rob Thompson said:
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!
It may come as a surprise to you - but a large number of people *do* count on the schools to do a large part of the educating and socializing of the young ones. There's an awful amount of stuff that kids learn in school that parents are *not* in a good position to teach - everything from Egyptian history to how to play well with others on a softball team. Might want to pick a better analogy - the days when we could all homeschool our kids are *long* gone, if they ever existed at all...) For that matter, our entire economic system only works because of passing the buck - every time you use a credit card, or write a check, you're passing the buck to somebody else. And even using cash rather than bickering and bartering how many goats that pair of shoes is worth is passing the buck... ;) Bottom line - unless you live off the grid, in a house you built with your own two hands using tools you manufactured yourself and material you gathered yourself, "passing the buck isn't okay" is just a tad hypocritical...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
_______________________________________________ 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:
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (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? David M Chess (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Ned Fleming (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? Paul M Moriarty (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)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? nick hatch (Sep 08)