State Super-DMCA Too True

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Mon Mar 31 23:54:15 UTC 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




More information about the NANOG mailing list