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.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Kansas City Cops Tell Man They'll Kill His Dogs And Destroy His Home If Forced To Obtain A Search Warrant
- Most Big Internet Companies Speak Out For Major Surveillance Reform
- Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops