On 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?
Also "transmits". (I'm impressed that someone in Congress knows the word "routes"....)
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?)
And the immediate usptreams will fail to obtain knowledge or awareness of their customer's actions, the same way they always have.
Note the word "circumstances"...
Move along, nothing to see.. ;)
Until, of course, some Assistant U.S. Attorney or some attorney in a civil lawsuit decides you were or should have been aware and takes you to court. You may win, but after spending O(\alph_0) zorkmids on lawyers defending yourself.... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb