In message <75cb24520911060747x3556e01tbb80be8c9e0d58b3@mail.gmail.com>, Christ opher Morrow writes:
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. =A0Does 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 i= n 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
There are still plenty of way to inform a company. Ring up the support line. Registered mail. I suspect a court would see the practice of sending abuse@ to /dev/null in a very poor light especially once the court learns that this is the standard address. A consumer should be able to reasonably assume that the message was delivered. If you bounce then they should be aware that it didn't get through and they can take other steps to inform you.
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
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org