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

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

Rob Thompson wrote:

> Best I can say is this...from my last reply.  And this is the last I'll
> say.  I can see my opinion is far from popular.
>
> If they were selling Anthrax, I wouldn't have said a word.  _THAT_ is
> different.

Huh?

You really are seriously deluded...

> Freaking handbags!!!

So what are you really upset about here?

That you don't understand that the fact you can even use a fucking 
computer and post these messages means you're up to your eyeballs in 
consumerist hyprocrisy, or that you really just don't like handbags 
and/or their makers/sellers?

The fact that it is Louis Vuitton and fake handbags is pretty much 
entirely irrelevant.  The interesting aspect of this ruling is that it 
(like several others, in slightly different behavioural domains) has 
affirmed (for those who are so pig-ignorant as to not recognize it) 
that "online behaviour" is (largely) ruled by the same laws, customs 
and so on as "real world" behaviours.

Is _that_ what you don't like?

If you really thought that just because computers, "virtual 
communities" and other such electronic ephemeera were involved that 
somehow all this "int-duh-web stuff" was magically "different" or 
"special", then maybe _you_ are the "special" one???



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.