Rod, Sorry for the mislead on this. I agree with you. There are a lot of layer 9 reasons why this is the case. regards NP
Quoting rodbe...@gmail.com: > Nancy, > > You're missing the point and you're quoting out of context. > > The point is that common carrier protections should apply to ISPs since they > are essentially doing the same thing as carriers - they are shipping bits. > > The whole enhanced service distinction is flimsy. There is nothing about IP > that makes an enhanced service in any meaninful sense different It is just a > transport protocol. > > So don't confuse 'is' and 'ought'. > > I am advocating that common carrier protections should be extended to ISPs. > ---- Envoyé avec BlackBerry® d'Orange ---- > > -----Original Message----- > From: <nan...@yorku.ca> > > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:08 > To: Richard A Steenbergen<r...@e-gerbil.net> > Cc: NANOG list<nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: > fields in the email addresses > > > As I understand & pls correct if I am wrong: > > > There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication > > transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called > > common carrier. > > Telephony = common carrier yes- considered 'basic service'under Telecom Act > 96.. > > but data is considered 'enhanced services' different section of the Act. Thus > common carrier does not apply. > > The dualism/argument began in the 2nd computer inquiry and scales right up to > [US dominated] Intl telephony settlements- ICAIS where VoIP is not settled > the > same way [$] but governed by peering/transit arrangements > > Nancy Paterson > (Reachability as a Net Neutrality Issue) > PhD student, YorkU, Toronto > > > > Quoting Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net>: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:57:27PM +0100, Rod Beck wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > It is a more complicated issue than that. > > > > > > There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication > > > transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called > > > common carrier. If someone makes an obscene phone call, the phone > > > company cannot be held liable. Yes, if the client subsequently > > > complains and asks for that number to be blocked and the phone company > > > does nothing, that's different. > > > > > > But the general principle is that anyone who transmits bits is not > > > liable for content. > > > > > > Unfortunately in my personal view that principle never got established > > > in the Layer 3 world. > > > > This has nothing to do with telecommunications or any kind of carrier or > > business relationship. This is intentionally leaving your computer open > > so that anyone on the Internet can come along and appear to be coming > > from your IP, where they will promptly set off doing bad stuff that will > > get traced back to you rather than them. Think of it like intentionally > > leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and a note > > authorizing people to borrow it and take it for a spin, and then > > expecting not to get into any kind of trouble when they rack up speeding > > tickets and/or use it to run someone over. > > > > Besides, the kind of consequencies I'm talking about are "having your > > internet account shut off for abuse"... But if you do happen to be one > > of those unlucky people who gets sued for downloading illegal content I > > don't think "but your honor I was running tor" is the defense you're > > looking for. :) > > > > -- > > Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) > > > > > > > > > > >
