funsec mailing list archives
Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
From: Rob Thompson <my.security.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:42:47 -0700
Paul Ferguson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Rob Thompson<my.security.lists () gmail com> wrote: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!Have you ever heard of criminal negligence?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+negligence Noun 1. criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) --
From the article:
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.
I suppose you think that's bullshit, too?
Yes, I do. It's a hand bag. If someone is at risk of personal injury or death because a hand bag was sold illegally, then I guess I stand corrected. Otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying that the ISP (if they _really_ did know - and the proof wasn't given - so I am skeptical) couldn't have done something about it. But to make another one of these half-assed laws, when is enough enough? If the ISP were mine, I would have removed it, on my own accord...but not because of yet another unnecessary law. The right way to do it, don't buy the counterfeit goods. If there is no money in it, no one will do it. There are other, better ways, than this.
- ferg
-- Rob +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | _ | | ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) | | - against HTML email X | | / \ | | | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ _______________________________________________ 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.
Current thread:
- ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Gadi Evron (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Gadi Evron (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? G. D. Fuego (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul Ferguson (Sep 07)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul Ferguson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)