adrian at creative.net.au
Wed Jun 24 23:29:28 CDT 2009
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 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.
Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common carrier
(Apologies for off-topic noise.)
More information about the NANOG