nanog mailing list archives

Re: Congress may require ISPs to block fraud sites H.R.3817


From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:47:19 -0500

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:09 CST, Bryan King said:
Did I miss a thread on this? Has anyone looked at this yet?

`(2) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS- Any Internet service provider that, on
or through a system or network controlled or operated by the Internet
service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores
any material containing any misrepresentation of the kind prohibited in
paragraph (1) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby, including
damages suffered by SIPC, if the Internet service provider--

"routes" sounds the most dangerous part there.  Does this mean that if
we have a BGP peering session with somebody, we need to filter it?

Fortunately, there's the conditions:

`(A) has actual knowledge that the material contains a misrepresentation
of the kind prohibited in paragraph (1), or

`(B) in the absence of actual knowledge, is aware of facts or
circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a
misrepresentation of the kind prohibited in paragraph (1), and

upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, fails to act expeditiously
to remove, or disable access to, the material.

So the big players that just provide bandwidth to the smaller players are
mostly off the hook - AS701 has no reason to be aware that some website in
Tortuga is in violation (which raises an intresting point - what if the
site *is* offshore?)

mail to: abuse () uu net
Subject: Fraud through your network

Hi! someone in tortuga on ip address 1.2.3.4 which I accessed through
your network is fraudulently claiming to be the state-bank-of-elbonia.
Just though you should know! Also, I think that HR3817 expects you'll
now stop this from happening!

-concerned-internet-user

oops, now they have actual knowledge... I suppose this is a good
reason though to:

vi /etc/aliases ->
abuse: /dev/null

so, is this bill helping? or hurting? :(


And the immediate usptreams will fail to obtain knowledge or awareness of
their customer's actions, the same way they always have.

Move along, nothing to see.. ;)

to my mind this is the exact same set of problems that the PA state
anti-CP law brought forth...

-chris


Current thread: