[861] in linux-security and linux-alert archive
Re: [linux-security] suspicious users
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt)
Fri Jun 28 12:53:41 1996
To: linux-security@tarsier.cv.nrao.edu
From: panzer@dhp.com (Matt)
Date: 25 Jun 1996 14:07:16 -0400
[Mod: Let's please let this thread die here; it's more politics and
legalisms than security. --Jeff.]
Suicide Object (wvdputte@reptile.rug.ac.be) wrote:
: this is a bit off topic, more on this 'legal thing':
yes.
: Basically: my machine is my ass. If someone abuses my machine *I*'m the
: one who is going to take the responsability. Same should go for any ISP:
: if you let people party in your house, they should behave. If they start
: doing weird stuff, you should be able to look into it.
If you use this philosphy to deal with things, it will be your ass. You
need to view ISP's as "common carriers". An ISP is not your house, it is
a service, like the phone company. The phone company doesn't have the
right to to listen to the phone calls that go through it's equipment. By
keeping this law, they protect themselves when people abuse it.
If you actively deal with "editting" users, then you are responsible for
them. If you let users pay for the use of your tools, then they are
responsible for themselves. (This has even made it into US court system
when Prodigy was sued for allowing, slanderous, posts on their network.
The judge stated that since Prodigy made an active attempt to censor
things, then it was liable for things said, and if they had just allowed
things through, then they wouldn't have been liable.)
--
-Matt (panzer@dhp.com) DI-1-9026
"That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited."
