funsec mailing list archives
Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
From: der Mouse <mouse () rodents-montreal org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
The interesting aspect of this ruling is that it [...] has affirmed [...] that "online behaviour" is (largely) ruled by the same laws, customs and so on as "real world" behaviours.
Except it hasn't, because it isn't. At least not in general. "Online" behaviour _is_ ruled by the same laws and customs as off-net behaviour when all, or at least enough, of the parties are in the same (off-net) jurisdiction. _That_ is what this ruling has affirmed. But, unlike offline behaviour, on-the-net behaviour is very often thoroughly cross-jurisdictional, with no clear way to determine whose laws apply. Someone in Germany buys from a Japanese company through an Egyptian-hosted website paying with a US payment broker and the product ships from Brazil, and it's, um, a little less clear. Nor do you really want it otherwise, I suspect, because I suspect that most of your - and my, and just about everyone else's - on-net actions are illegal _somewhere_. Unless you expect to enforce your laws against others but are unwilling to accept reciprocal enforcement of others' laws againt you.
If you really thought that just because computers, "virtual communities" and other such electronic ephemeera were involved that somehow all this "int-duh-web stuff" was magically "different" or "special", then maybe _you_ are the "special" one???
Not just because they're involved, but because they are fundamentally different. See by blah entry on the subject, http://ftp.rodents-montreal.org/mouse/blah/2009-09-08-1.html, if you're interested in my thoughts on the matter. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse () rodents-montreal org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ 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 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)
- 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)