State Super-DMCA Too True

Mon Mar 31 23:24:30 UTC 2003

Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz at bellsouth.com>
> > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
> [..]
> > Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
> > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
> > since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection
> > -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
>
> Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket.
> You can't be possibly serious about considering the two to be equals.

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.

> In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and
> blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable.  Excesses
> are rarely protected by any legal statutes.

To the extent a customer attacks or defrauds the carrier itself, protection
measures are allowed.  But you cannot "protect" the public at large without
a court order to do so.

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