tor

Adrian Chadd 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.
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html

Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common carrier
status."



Adrian
(Apologies for off-topic noise.)




More information about the NANOG mailing list