nanog mailing list archives
Re: tor
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:39:40 -0500
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
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
Except interestingly, TOR is the common carrier at its best, not filtering and investigating the use of the packets being transfered.
The cause for saying an ISP is not a common carrier is the handling of abuse of the network, which could still be argued as common carrier in that the effects of spam, port scans, etc do have an impact on an ISP if they go unchecked and watch other networks filter them out. In addition, there are plenty of laws designed to protect customer privacy in the government's attempt to provide common carrier status for an ISP.
DMCA also attempts to preserve common carrier for the ISP, requiring the ISP to extend a level of trust and act in specific a manner to maintain those protections.
I don't think any of it is perfect, and it will take time for government to catch up to understanding how the Internet can be handled.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: tor, (continued)
- Re: tor Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Rod Beck (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Rod Beck (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Adrian Chadd (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Adrian Chadd (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jun 24)
- Re: common carriers, was tor John Levine (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Jack Bates (Jun 25)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Jamon Camisso (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Steve Pirk (Jun 24)
- Re: tor nancyp (Jun 25)
- Message not available
- Re: common carier nancyp (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Randy Bush (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Charles Wyble (Jun 24)
- Re: tor Aaron Porter (Jun 25)