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

[John Bambenek <bambenek.infosec () gmail com>]

If you're going to post in-depth legal critiques of rulings, it might 
behoove you to know the difference between the criminal court system and 
the civil court system.  This case was brought by Vuitton, not by the 
FBI.  And unless you think absolutely fabulous apparel is a federal 
criminal issue, I doubt they would qualify as law enforcement.

j

Rob Thompson wrote:
> Nick FitzGerald wrote:
>   
> > 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_.
> >     
>
> Point taken.
>
> I still do not agree with it.  I think that it is a piss poor job on
> behalf of law enforcement.  Get the _one known fraudster_ that is
> committing the actual act.  BEFORE it is permitted to be repeated.
>
> Now if the hosting site is hosting (as in advertising, come here to host
> your illegal warez for $$$) to cater to the criminal, that's another
> story.  But that isn't how I am interpreting this.  I am interpreting
> this as sheer laziness and quite frankly it's rather pathetic.  Passing
> the buck isn't okay.  We count on the schools to raise our kids and the
> ISP to police the interwebs.  Bullshit!
>
>   
> > 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...
> >
> >     
>
> Guns don't kill people, people kill people???
>
> Let's get Remington on the phone.  If you didn't sell the gun to the gas
> station robber, he wouldn't have knocked off those seven petrol stands...
>
>   
> > 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.
> >
> >     
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
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.