On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd<adr...@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.)
