RSS
Twitter
ISP Liability Not The Answer To Illegal Net Activity
from the misplaced-blame dept
In the fight against illegal net activity, some argue that ISPs should be held responsible for what happens on their network. While ISPs here face no such liability, it's the opposite in the UK. The head of the ISP Clara.net is fighting back, arguing that there's no way for an ISP to be an arbiter of the law, due to lack of staff and lack of qualifications. Not only does this make the job of the ISP much harder, it's also a bad system for its clients. Just to be safe, ISPs will be more inclined to take down material that gets complaints. Because the company is doing the government's work, in deciding what is legal and what is not, it would be legitimate to call this censorship (unlike here, when companies restrict certain material, in which case it's just called doing business). The main problem with ISP liability is the obvious, that they're not the one committing illegal acts. If businesses were routinely held liable for the illegal things customers did with their products, a lot of commerce wouldn't get done. While it may be worth exploring how the fight against illegal activity on the net can be decentralized, ISP liability is a poor method.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Isn't this the same thing as this?
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20060320/1636238
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Guns
So when will the knives and gun manufacturers be charged? After all, customers are committing murders and other crimes with those companies products.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Guns
Gun manufacturers have already been sued. The DC "sniper" case was settled out of court. Do a search and see what pops up, you would be suprised.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Guns
Why not go after real killers, the car companies. Maybe we should always blame inanimate objects for every bad deed. Most ISP's seem pretty inanimate or at least anonymous to me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What about highways and sidewalks?
Can the state/Feds be sued because drugs are transported over highways? What about drugs sold on the street? Are these the same basic ideas?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What about highways and sidewalks?
No. Because they are not privately own entities and are considered community property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ISP self policing is the only solution to spam.
The isp is the only group with the ability to stop spam.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ISP self policing is the only solution to spam
actually the spamers can stop it too :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ISP self policing is the only solution to spam
"The isp is the only group with the ability to stop spam."
Uhh... no. The group with the most power to stop spam is...
...drumroll please...
USERS! If they would stop opening and even following links in spam, we wouldn't have a problem. However, since some users pay attention to this crap and even start a business relationship because of it, it's still a reasonable business plan.
Stop spam in your own backyard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ISP self policing is the only solution to
>> USERS!
And just when do you see USERS rising up against the tide of spam?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: ISP self policing is the only solution
"And just when do you see USERS rising up against the tide of spam?"
Every day when they yell at me. And every day I give them the same speach. And every day my boss asks me about sending out his own spam. And every day I get to bitch slap him.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ISP self policing is the only solution to spam
You're full of it....read previous posts re: who is to decide what is legal what is not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How about SBC?
Should SBC be held responsible if I make an obscene phone call over its lines?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Joe Public:
You can fight back - http://www.bluesecurity.com/blue-frog/
Bluefrog a) posts 'leave me alone' messages to the people advertised in the soam and b) BlueSec alert the FBI/software owners or what ever if the object is illegal, as well as get ISPs to take down servers.
I've got SpamAssassin sending anything over a score of 20 to them for my whole domain :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
isp-spam and censor
You'll are too wise for me.I know that everyone turns off thier TV at comm.- refuse to get mail for fear of another sales ad
refuse to look at the news rag about another two headed dog born.look closer there will be a mag. called LIFE .Buy It it may be the only way for you to get one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Production for use!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Devil's in the Details
It also needs to be very clear about what we're all talking about here.
For the direct act of, let's say spamming, I'm not sure how many people whould hold the ISP responsible initially and most everybody should agree that whoever is doing the spamming is primarily to blame.
If however, enough people complained to the ISP about their abusive user, and the ISP failed to respond in any way and the spammer continued their activities, it should be clear that the ISP failed in their responsibility to promote responsible use of their own resources. Namely the IP addresses that the spammer usually does not own, but rather leases which is also nullifies most of the arguments about guns and automobile owners since at that point the manufacturers can no longer take responsibility for their products if used incorrectly in my opinion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How about junk fax? Should the telcos be responsible for illegal junk faxes being sent over their lines? I say yes, after they are told about it.
Fax.com sent millions, made $50 million a year. Refused to pay their FCC fine of about $14 million, and Kevin Katz fled to South Africa.
If the telcos were responsible, jointly and severably they would have shut off those phone lines.
Now the junkfaxers are back in business, faxing daily, still illegal, and they are hiding behind fake corporations, fake addresses, etc.
The only players who are legit are the telcos.
I say make them responsible, if they know.
They are getting paid, after all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What about junkfax?
How about junk fax? Should the telcos be responsible for illegal junk faxes being sent over their lines? I say yes, after they are told about it.
Fax.com sent millions, made $50 million a year. Refused to pay their FCC fine of about $14 million, and Kevin Katz fled to South Africa.
If the telcos were responsible, jointly and severably they would have shut off those phone lines.
Now the junkfaxers are back in business, faxing daily, still illegal, and they are hiding behind fake corporations, fake addresses, etc.
The only players who are legit are the telcos.
I say make them responsible, if they know.
They are getting paid, after all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
bla
bla
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NO
ISPs should not police at all. They shouldnt self police either because that will set a precedent. They shouldnt blocl ports. They should simply provide a connection and stay the hell out of it.
If a user is hogging bandwidth, its none of the ISP business what they are doing but just that they are hogging and it can be stopped.
ISPs getting into the spam filtering business was a bad idea. Now it will be a downward spiral until the only ISP left is Aohell.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NO
ISPs should not police at all. They shouldnt self police either because that will set a precedent. They shouldnt blocl ports. They should simply provide a connection and stay the hell out of it.
If a user is hogging bandwidth, its none of the ISP business what they are doing but just that they are hogging and it can be stopped.
ISPs getting into the spam filtering business was a bad idea. Now it will be a downward spiral until the only ISP left is Aohell.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment