State Super-DMCA Too True

Tue Apr 1 00:29:03 UTC 2003

Thus spake "Dan Hollis" <goemon at anime.net>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be
> > negligent not to look into it.
>
> How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are
> negligent and should be held liable...

Any actionable notice about illegal activities will come via conventional
channels from law enforcement officials -- not via email from customers or
other operators.

Since a common carrier can't filter on content -- only fraudulent and
malicious activity against the carrier itself -- there's not much (legal)
purpose in maintaining an abuse@ alias.

Abuse reporting exists in its current form today because (a) there's no laws
against most "abuse", and (b) the cops refuse to act unless you claim at
least $250k in damages per event.  As the lawyers sink their teeth into the
net, you're going to find less and less "good will" out there simply because
it opens you to liabilty in court.

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