[119063] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Congress may require ISPs to block fraud sites H.R.3817
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Nov 5 17:57:52 2009
To: Bryan King <bking@inline.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST."
<4AF35449.8030700@inline.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:56:46 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1257461806_2581P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
> Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?
> `(2) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS- Any Internet service provider that, on
> or through a system or network controlled or operated by the Internet
> service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores
> any material containing any misrepresentation of the kind prohibited in
> paragraph (1) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby, including
> damages suffered by SIPC, if the Internet service provider--
"routes" sounds the most dangerous part there. Does this mean that if
we have a BGP peering session with somebody, we need to filter it?
Fortunately, there's the conditions:
> `(A) has actual knowledge that the material contains a misrepresentation
> of the kind prohibited in paragraph (1), or
> `(B) in the absence of actual knowledge, is aware of facts or
> circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a
> misrepresentation of the kind prohibited in paragraph (1), and
> upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, fails to act expeditiously
> to remove, or disable access to, the material.
So the big players that just provide bandwidth to the smaller players are
mostly off the hook - AS701 has no reason to be aware that some website in
Tortuga is in violation (which raises an intresting point - what if the
site *is* offshore?)
And the immediate usptreams will fail to obtain knowledge or awareness of
their customer's actions, the same way they always have.
Move along, nothing to see.. ;)
--==_Exmh_1257461806_2581P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFK81gucC3lWbTT17ARAjaeAJ9Snqyq/z7qeF/Z+ag+xluKfUQAdwCgrJ4V
LyG+0P2RJeLA9VRrzgejyiE=
=Mxbr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1257461806_2581P--
