[115514] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: tor
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Thu Jun 25 00:14:31 2009
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:14:20 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bb0e440a0906242052u1ffc96abyba41a66163719817@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an
> interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by
> simply running a TOR exit node.
Ah, but would an ISP which currently enjoys whatever the current definition
of "common carrier" is these days, running a TOR node, still be covered by
said provisions?
Adrian
