Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?

[Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>]

Rob Thompson wrote:

> This is akin to closing down a freaking bank, because they cashed a
> fraudulent check.

No -- to stick with your grievously weak analogy, it is much more like 
very heavily (punitively -- get it?) fining a bank and its manager for 
repeatedly cashing fraudulent checks _from one known fraudster_.

If the penalty is enough to actually put the bank out of the business, 
the other customers move their accounts with that bank to another bank 
and get on with their lives.

AND you can bet that they will be quite a bit more careful in checking 
out the bona fides and likely business practices when evaluating the 
prospective banks for that move!


Finally, as all that is at issue in this case are just bits at rest on 
server drives and zipping around fibre and copper circuits, it's much 
easier and MUCH LESS disruptive to the other customers of the 
convicted, active, complicit fraud-enabler in the online world than in 
your bricks-and-mortar bank analogy.


If you're going draw analogies, please at least try to make them 
modestly apposite...



Regards,

Nick FitzGerald


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.