Re: tor

[Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd<adrian () creative net au> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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

Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common carrier
status."



Adrian
(Apologies for off-topic noise.)