tor

Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Jun 24 23:28:11 CDT 2009


On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd<adrian at creative.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an
>> interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by
>> simply running a TOR exit node.
>
> Ah, but would an ISP which currently enjoys whatever the current definition
> of "common carrier" is these days, running a TOR node, still be covered by
> said provisions?

ISPs are not common carriers.  Geoff Huston is - as always - the guy
who explains it best.
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)




More information about the NANOG mailing list