nanog mailing list archives
Re: common carriers, was tor
From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 25 Jun 2009 16:44:58 -0000
Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common carrier status."
That would not include any ISP in the United States. (Dunno about Canada.) As other people have pointed out, telcos are common carriers, ISPs aren't, not even ISPs that are subsidiaries of telcos. The legal status of ISPs in the U.S. can best be described as complicated. The DMCA provides limited immunity from copyright suits, and the CDA (47 USC 230) provides fairly broad immunity from some other kinds of suits. The U.S. is a common law country where you don't really know how a law will be applied until there are enough reported cases to establish persuasive case law, and we're a long way from that. So go ahead and run Tor if you want, but if the cops knock on the door, I would advise against saying "we're a common carrier so go away." R's, John
Current thread:
- RE: tor, (continued)
- 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 Rod Beck (Jun 24)
- 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)