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

["G. D. Fuego" <gdfuego () gmail com>]

On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Rob Thompson <my.security.lists () gmail com>  
wrote:

> Gadi Evron wrote:
> > In a lawsuit brought by fashion company Louis Vuitton, a jury ruled  
> > that
> > two ISPs -- Akanoc Solutions and Managed Solutions Group -- knew  
> > about
> > counterfeit Vuitton goods that were being sold on their customers'
> > sites, but didn't act quickly to pull the plug on those sites. The
> > decision was first reported on Tuesday.
> >
> > The ruling has been called a landmark decision by some legal experts,
> > who note that ISPs historically have been protected by the Digital
> > Millennium Copyright Act, which limits service providers' liability  
> > for
> > criminal actions that take place on their networks.
>
> Way to go...way to go after the _real_ criminal.
>
> This is akin to closing down a freaking bank, because they cashed a
> fraudulent check.
> >

Wouldn't a bank be liable if they knowingly cashed fraudulent checks?
_______________________________________________
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.