tor

Brandon Galbraith brandon.galbraith at gmail.com
Wed Jun 24 17:16:44 CDT 2009


You're referring to the DMCAs safe harbor provision.

-brandon

On 6/24/09, Steven M. Bellovin <smb at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400
> Andrew D Kirch <trelane at trelane.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> >
>> >> sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be
>> >> anonymous in hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from
>> >> self-important people who wear formal clothes.
>> >>
>> >> folk who learn this the hard way may find a pointer passed to me
>> >> by smb helpful, <http://www.chrisbrunner.com/?p=119>.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If bittorrent of copyrighted material is the most illegal thing you
>> > helped facilitate while running tor, and all you got was an
>> > assertive e-mail because of it, you should consider yourself
>> > extremely lucky.
>> >
>> > Anonymity against privacy invasion and for political causes sure
>> > sounds like a great concept, but in reality it presents too
>> > tempting a target for abuse. If you choose to open up your internet
>> > connection to anyone who wants to use it, you should be prepared to
>> > be held accountable for what those anonymous people do with it. I'm
>> > sure you don't just sell transit to any spammer who comes along
>> > without researching them a little first, why should this be any
>> > different.
>> You might also consider asserting your right to common carrier
>> immunity under 47USC230.
>>
> OK -- I looked at that part of the US Code
> (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html).  Apart from the fact
> that the phrase "common carrier" does not occur in that section,
> subparagraph (f)(2) says:
>
> 	Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand
> 	any law pertaining to intellectual property.
>
> Perhaps you're referring to the law exempting ISPs from liability for
> user-created content?  (I don't have the citation handy.)  If so,
> remember that that law requires response to take-down notices.
>
>
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>
>


-- 
Brandon Galbraith
Mobile: 630.400.6992
FNAL: 630.840.2141




More information about the NANOG mailing list