North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
Regarding common carriers, Geoff Huston wrote a good article for IPJ http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_5-3/ipj_5-3_uncommon_carrier.html Kris (top posting because below this line is a complete mess) > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:30 PM > To: todd glassey > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes; Michael > Loftis; Robert A. > Hayden > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > As reading your message both hurts my eyes and would take > excessive effort > to reformat for a reply, I won't do so. > > However, I do question the credibility of anyone who cites > Cheech and Chong > to back up his position. > > 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 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "todd glassey" <[email protected]> > To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email protected]>; "Michael Loftis" > <[email protected]>; "Robert A. Hayden" <[email protected]> > Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 31 March, 2003 17:07 > Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > Stephen - my responses in caps - > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > > Behalf Of > > Stephen Sprunk > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM > > To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden > > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > > > > > Thus spake "todd glassey" <[email protected]> > > > 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? > > > > THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU > > THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS > > IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE - > > I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES > > NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE > > GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT. > > > > No. > > If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to > > jail too? > > > > DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU. > > > > No. > > > > BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A > > CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND - > > THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE > > PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO > > APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS > > DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS, MY TAKE IS > > THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN > > THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY > > OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON. > > > > ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING > > DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE > > DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE > > THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE > > POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS > > JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN > > THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE... > > > > Common carrier status exists for this very reason. > > > > I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON > > CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS > > CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES > > MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3 > > OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR > > INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY - > > > > Unfortunately, it > > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam > > and DoS, since > > filtering on content inherently violates common carrier > > protection -- > > > > NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR > > ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION > > ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS > > MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL > > FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND > > YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A > > GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" - > > TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG. > > > > see > > the smut suit against AOL a few years ago. > > > > I KNOW - I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM > > THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S > > INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO > > IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT. > > > > 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 > > > > >
|