[57222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Mon Mar 31 18:33:49 2003
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>,
"todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Loftis" <mloftis@wgops.com>,
"Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@geek.net>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:24:30 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>
> > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen@sprunk.org]
> [..]
> > Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it
> > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
> > since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection
> > -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
>
> Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket.
> You can't be possibly serious about considering the two to be equals.
Okay, I'll admit filtering DoS will probably survive given it's a problem
for the carrier, not just the customer. But my original point is that as
long as ISPs do not examine the contents of a customer's packets, they
cannot be held liable for what's in them. Content filtering, whether for
smut, spam, or piracy, is a serious argument against ISPs claiming common
carrier status.
> In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and
> blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable. Excesses
> are rarely protected by any legal statutes.
To the extent a customer attacks or defrauds the carrier itself, protection
measures are allowed. But you cannot "protect" the public at large without
a court order to do so.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
