Sometimes its more like asking the FedEx driver to carry a festering pile of excrement. When does the delivery driver finally say enough?
I mostly agree that infrastructure companies should not be in the business of content moderation. However, like most of these issues, things are not black-and-white but lie within a broad spectrum. Somewhere at the ends of that spectrum, refusal of service should be a viable option.
Years ago, I was doing some db work for a state public housing department in Australia. This involved identifying housing that required maintenance or refurbishing (anything from new kitchen to painting walls) and assigning that work to an approved contractor.
One problem I remember was that the department rental agent would not let us go into certain houses. The reason was that they knew those were used by drug dealers and they were scared to go in there.
Being a naive IT guy and not well versed in the public sector, I suggested telling the police. Oh no, I was told, we have strict privacy guidelines so we cannot do that.
The privacy concerns were so onerous that I could not even obtain the tenants' names so that my we could send a personalised letter telling them that we were to do maintenance on the property. And that was sharing information within the same govt department.
Now I don't know what the situation is in Ireland, but certainly in Australia govt departments have privacy guidelines that preclude sharing information.
However, I would not be surprised if things are different for information gathered on the internet, because it's on a computer.
I see a few commenter here making the assumption that US breathalyser practice applies in Australia. But that is not how breath testing works here. In Oz the police set up a breath testing station, usually on an access road that is difficult to avoid, and then stop and test most cars that drive by. It is not necessary to see erratic behaviour. On busy roads some cars will be waved through at random so that traffic does not build up too much. We call this random breath testing.
The reasons that cops here would fake breath tests are either that they get tired and want to go home (unlikely since they work set hours) or that there's not enough traffic on the night to meet quotas.
Assume for a moment that industry lobbyists are right, and that NN leads to lower investment by ISPs. Why is this a valid argument to remove NN?
EPA pollution rules clearly lead to less investment by auto companies, yet we still have the rules. FDA rules lead to less investment by drug companies, it would obviously be much easier to bring new drugs to the market without all that onerous testing. Building regs probably help to make sure that buildings don't fall down, but they undoubtedly led to higher building costs and lower investment in the industry.
Rules and regulations are not there to boost investment.
Under Australian law, a standard form contract is deemed to hold unfair terms if;
- it would cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising out of the contract
- it is not reasonably necessary in order to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would be advantaged by the term; and
- it would cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it were to be applied or relied on.
Unfair terms in these contracts are deemed to be void.
I suspect that some other countries have similar provisions in contract law (Canada?, France?). I wonder if this will, in the longer terms, influence a move of research to jurisdictions that are more friendly to researcher rights?