tor
Joe Blanchard
jbfixurpc at gmail.com
Wed Jun 24 22:49:39 UTC 2009
My gosh...
Ok, so if someone happens to talk about murder over the phone, is the phone
company providing the service held liable?
Lets get back to rational/informative content please.
-Joe Blanchard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Beck [mailto:Rod.Beck at hiberniaatlantic.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: Steven M. Bellovin; trelane at trelane.net
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: RE: tor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb at cs.columbia.edu]
> Sent: Wed 6/24/2009 11:01 PM
> To: trelane at trelane.net
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: tor
>
> 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
>
> Well, let's push a little harder. If I transfer stolen
> intellectual property over the Internet using simple file
> transfer, I don't believe any court is going to accept that
> the ISP has liability.
>
> So what is the underlying principle? Mind you the law is ad
> hoc most of the time. This whole area is fuzzy to the point
> of being a pea soup fog ...
More information about the NANOG
mailing list