[115516] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: tor
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Thu Jun 25 00:30:42 2009
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:29:28 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bb0e440a0906242128g6683ac58kdbce7b25e6127b@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:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd<adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> ISPs are not common carriers. Geoff Huston is - as always - the guy
> who explains it best.
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html
Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common carrier
status."
Adrian
(Apologies for off-topic noise.)
