[57225] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Mon Mar 31 18:47:13 2003
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:46:47 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Cc: todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>,
"Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@geek.net>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000001c2f7d5$a6f8c090$93b58742@ssprunk>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:32:18PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> > should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
> > and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these
> > laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> > these there will be some arrests.
>
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too? No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too? No.
>
> 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.
And yet, if FedEx notices a package is ticking, they have the right to
reject it without being held responsable for ones they don't catch.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
