On 6/9/2010 01:14, Paul Ferguson wrote: > To cut through the noise and non-relevant discussion, let's see if we can > boil this down to a couple of issues:
If I may offer a few edits and comments ..... > 1. Should ISPs be responsible for abuse from within their customer base? > 1. Should ISPs be responsible for every thing from within their customer > base?> > 1a. If so, how? [Good question. The answers will be hard, and some of the answers will seem to some to be against their own "self interest. How does a toll-road operator do it? An inn-keeper?] > 2. Should hosting providers also be held responsible for customers who > abuse their services in a criminal manner? [A legal question--is the inn keeper responsible for the harm to you of a meth lab he allows to operate in the room next to yours?] > 2.a If so, how? See above. > I think anyone in their right mind would agree that if a provider see > criminal activity, they should take action, no? In some US states the law requires it. > If that also holds true, then why doesn't it happen? It's hard. It costs to much (actually false in my opinion--see "trashed hotel rooms"). Somebody else should be doing it. Personal (see also "corporations as persons") responsibility is now an undefined term. > Providers in the U.S. are the worst offenders of hosting/accommodating > criminal activities by Eastern European criminals. Period. All the crap I get, I get from a (nominally[1]) US provider. [1] China probably holds the mortgage, which is another problem for discussion another day (and somewhere else). -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
