nanog mailing list archives

Re: tor

From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:14:20 +0800

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an
interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by
simply running a TOR exit node.


Ah, but would an ISP which currently enjoys whatever the current definition
of "common carrier" is these days, running a TOR node, still be covered by
said provisions?



Adrian

Current thread:

Re: tor, (continued)
- - - Re: tor Jack Bates (Jun 24)
    - RE: tor Joe Blanchard (Jun 24)
    - Re: tor Steven M. Bellovin (Jun 24)
    - Re: tor Brandon Galbraith (Jun 24)
  - RE: tor Rod Beck (Jun 24)
    - 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)

(Thread continues...)