Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

["Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell () isipp com>]

Mel, this is to ack your note. "Because I'm a lawyer" isn't an argument at all, *nor have I made it* - however, that 
I'm extremely busy, and under no obligation to provide any of this information here, is.  I'm not here for academic 
debate.   You are also free to bring a lawsuit based on ISP as common carrier, but you will lose.

Anne

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 12:19 PM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
>
> Anne of Many Titles,
>
> I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What, for example, outside of copyright 
> violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable for? Present an argument to make your case. “No, because I’m a lawyer 
> and you’re not” is not an argument :)
>
> As clearly stated in DMC 512(a), the safe harbor provision for transitory transport, which is what Cloudfare 
> provides, 
>
> "protects service providers who are passive conduits from liability for copyright infringement, even if infringing 
> traffic passes through their networks. In other words, provided the infringing material is being transmitted at the 
> request of a third party to a designated recipient, is handled by an automated process without human intervention, is 
> not modified in any way, and is only temporarily stored on the system, the service provider is not liable for the 
> transmission.” 
>
> That’s not a law school student opinion. That’s the law itself. As I previously said, I’m not talking about the FCC 
> definition of CC. Under DMCA, "service providers who are passive conduits” are the essence of the common law 
> definition of Common Carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier).
>
>  Incidentally, Network Neutrality wasn’t enacted until 2015, and classified ISPs as FCC CCs purely to bring them 
> under regulation by the FCC. DMCA was passed in 1998, and Safe Harbor is based on the fact that ISPs are “passive 
> conduits". NN has nothing to do with the common carrier aspect of ISPs as "service providers who are passive 
> conduits”. 
>
>  -mel
>
> > On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell () isipp com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Patrick,
> > >
> > > You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom regulatory purposes, and the DMCA definition, 
> > > which specifically grants ISPs protection from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they 
> > > operate as pure common carriers:
> > >
> > > “Section 512(a) provides a safe harbor from liability for ISPs, provided that they operate their networks within 
> > > certain statutory bounds, generally requiring the transmission of third-party information without interference, 
> > > modification, storage, or selection. [emphasis mine]
> > >
> > > http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v27/27HarvJLTech257.pdf
> > >
> > > -mel 
> >
> > Section 512(a) applies very specifically to the copyright infringement issue as addressed in the DMCA.  While I 
> > don't disagree that this law school paper, written while Lovejoy was a law student, in 2013,  could be read as if 
> > ISPs were common carriers, they are not, and were not.   Even if it were headed that way, actions by the current FTC 
> > and administration rolled back net neutrality efforts in 2017, four years after this student paper was published.
> >
> > All that said, this is very arcane stuff, and ever-mutating, so it's not at all difficult to see why reasonable 
> > people can differ about the meanings of various things out there. 
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
> > CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
> > Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
> > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> > Legislative Consultant
> > GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
> > Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> > Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> > Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
> > Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
> > Member: California Bar Association

---

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association