Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?

[Ned Fleming <ned () kaw us>]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:49:50 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

> 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...)

I think Rob has a point, though perhaps he didn't express it well.

This ISP "knew" that web site X was selling fraudulent (brand?)
handbags.

I wonder how they knew? Their level of knowledge is perhaps key.

But I have a different point.

Do we expect ATT/Verizon/etc. to stop phone service for fraudulent
sales pitches for these same handbags? Who does one call at ATT to get
someone's phone service terminated for such? How would ATT test the
veractity of such a claim.

Do we want ATT/an ISP to be the Consumer Reports -- with police power
-- to censor our networks?

-- 

Ned




_______________________________________________
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.