North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

  • From: Jack Bates
  • Date: Mon Mar 31 18:56:40 2003

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Okay, I'll admit filtering DoS will probably survive given it's a problem
for the carrier, not just the customer.  But my original point is that as
long as ISPs do not examine the contents of a customer's packets, they
cannot be held liable for what's in them.  Content filtering, whether for
smut, spam, or piracy, is a serious argument against ISPs claiming common
carrier status.


Content filtering can get you in trouble. It will be interesting to see what happens if a virus makes it through one of these ISP's virus protectors and infects someone; especially since they give it as a selling point. On the other hand, and ISP that does an action such as executable stripping or virus scanning not as a selling point, but as a protection measure of the carrier itself has no responsibility to the customer.

In the same reguards, filtering has a limited scope. While an ISP can filter for spam and viruses, to actually filter for illegal activity is more difficult. Given the war on spam and the fact that it's not going to end soon, I'd say trying to say an ISP is liable for scams or other illegal activity is a little far fetched. On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be negligent not to look into it. In piracy cases, however, a simple 'give me the supoena and I'll give you the name and address' should suffice. After all, if you are being harrassed, you don't call the phone company to take care of the customer. You call the legal authorities.

-Jack