[105244] in Cypherpunks
Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Mon Nov 9 00:54:50 1998
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:44:32 -0800
To: phelix@vallnet.com, cypherpunks@algebra.com
From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <3646ba82.49389892@news>
Reply-To: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
On 7 Nov 1998 13:50:20 -0600, Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote:
>>I was pondering the draconian implications of the requirement to register
>>ISP's. Would an email only site be an ISP under these regulations?
>>....
>>Would such a commercial entity require registry to be protected?
The extent of protection for unregistered services is
really unclear now -- the law appears to say that registering
will protect you, but is less clear about whether the
courts will have to find liability for someone who
isn't registered but still wouldn't have been liable before
the new law. Of course, just because you're not liable doesn't
mean you can't be hauled into court and spending lawyer costs,
especially before there's a lot of precedent.
There's been some discussion on Cyberia-L about issues like
whether the service needs to have been registered at the time the
potentially infringing transmission took place, or whether it
only needs to be registered by the time of a court case.
At 09:29 PM 11/7/98 GMT, phelix@vallnet.com wrote:
>If an anonymous remailer needs to register, what will the implications be?
Anonymous remailers may have a tougher time avoiding liability
for material published through them, especially without keeping logs
showing who the user was that did publish it, at least in some form
that allows them to be blocked.
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
