[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[no subject]



We would be incredibly pissed if our sites were blocked out of the blue.  If 
it was 'required' that the courts send notice then it's a different thing.

If an ISP was notified that it had illegal content on it's servers and it 
had 5 days (hopefully business days) to take it off then I'd be fine with 
that. So long as the court had a way of verifying the letter was read.  That 
would eliminate the "lost in the mail" excuse.

After 5 days let the government shut down the site if they want.  Let the 
ISP go through a bunch of government red tape before the IP is taken off the 
block list.

As for the clients who had nothing to do with the illegal content they'd 
ahve the right to sue the ISP for loss of business due to thier site going 
down.

The after effects of an ISP not taking action agiainst the content would be 
very bad on thier business.  If they survive they would be very wise not to 
make the same mistake again.

But from what I took from the article it looks like the courts have too much 
power and don't have to play by their own rules.  I believe it said that 
there were instances where the ISP complied yet sites were still blocked.

As for the routing table argument I didn't see the specifics on this to tell 
who was doing the configuration and where at.  Obviously there's no windows 
application to say "block this IP address from reaching the world"  while it 
isn't rocket science you have toknwo what your doing with this stuff.

Simple mistakes can lead to huge consequences.

Too many arguemnts too little time.

Brian Wright
wrightweb@wright-onthe-web.com
http://www.wright-onthe-web.com




>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: thewho@igtc.com
>To: thewho@igtc.com
>Subject: Re: Center for Democracy and Technology
>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:15:58 +0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: [169.139.190.4]
>Received: from mc8-f11.law1.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.147]) by 
>mc8-s21.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 20 Feb 
>2003 22:19:51 -0800
>Received: from igtc.igtc.com ([66.166.73.180]) by mc8-f11.law1.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:19:50 -0800
>Received: from igtc.igtc.com 
>(IDENT:SVFHKc5L++GB2nHfAlMLi0GkbQy0PoeS@localhost.localdomain 
>[127.0.0.1])by igtc.igtc.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id 
>h1L6G6fG018195for <thewho-outgoing@igtc.igtc.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 
>22:16:06 -0800
>Received: (from daemon@localhost)by igtc.igtc.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id 
>h1L6G6WU018194for thewho-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:16:06 -0800
>Received: from hotmail.com (bay2-f25.bay2.hotmail.com [65.54.247.25]) by  
>igtc.igtc.com (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1L6G4fG018184 for  
><thewho@igtc.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:16:04 -0800
>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft  SMTPSVC; 
>Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:15:59 -0800
>Received: from 169.139.190.4 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;  Fri, 
>21 Feb 2003 06:15:58 GMT
>X-Message-Info: N2mRlepP/as=
>Message-ID: <BAY2-F25hJY0kTbm88p00026c58@hotmail.com>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2003 06:15:59.0089 (UTC)  
>FILETIME=[B3804E10:01C2D970]
>Sender: owner-thewho@igtc.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Return-Path: owner-thewho@igtc.com
>
>>I'd consider myslef an ISP expert seeing as how I'm the Lead Tech at one.
>>
>>Mind reposting the info about the blocking?
>
>Here's what the CFD&T has to say about the law and their challenge.  If 
>they're correct about how it's being handled, then I think it's wrong, too. 
>  It sounds like PA is issuing a court order to block off portions of the 
>Internet, trying to insulate the state.
>
>>You might be interested in the full report that we issued -- you can find 
>>it at http://www.cdt.org/speech/030200pennreport.pdf. Our web site has 
>>other information (including the text of the Pennsylvania law) at 
>>http://www.cdt.org/speech/ . Thanks again for your input.
>
>
>>ISP's should not be held liable for what it's users post on thier websites 
>>unless their doing this knowably which can be hard to prove.  For a 
>>smaller ISP if some guy comes in and signs up for the domain 
>>naked-kiddes.com we'd show him the door. If the same guy came in and 
>>wanted hosting for his domain widgets-n-gidgets.com no problem but I'm 
>>sure at some point soon we'd be checking out his site just to see it's 
>>working.
>>
>>Smaller ISP's have more control over thier networks and should be held 
>>more liable if thier hosting child porn. National ISP conglomerates 
>>automate everything and therefore would be less likely to know about and 
>>porn hosting.
>>
>>Even less liekly to be detected is pornographic files in the useres folder 
>>on a public webserver.  It's there and easily linked to in private but 
>>can't easily be spotted by an ISP of any size.
>>
>>That's my two cents on the responsibilty of the ISP now what was your 
>>question again? :)
>
>I guess the question is whether laws requiring that ISPs block child porn 
>sites are feasable.  Would it be possible for any scheme like PA's to work? 
>  After reading the description, I don't think so.  It appears they're 
>asking all the surrounding ISPs to block particular blocks of address 
>numbers, in order to block child porn sites from the PA area.  In doing 
>this they're also blocking other large segments of the Internet.
>
>Presumably, if the sites were identified to the hosting ISP, then they 
>would be removed from service.  This would seem to be the way to go about 
>it.
>
>
>keets
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail