On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher <tbeec...@localnet.com> wrote: > Not really comparable. > > Speaking from a US point of view, ISPs has strong legal protections > isolating them from culpability for the actions of their customers. I know > internationally things are different, but here in the US the ISP doesn't get > dinged, except in certain cases where they are legally required to remove > access to material and don't. > > End users have no such protections that I'm aware of that cover them > similarly. > > > On 11/29/2012 2:50 PM, George Herbert wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher <tbeec...@localnet.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or >>> otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly. >> >> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?
There are plenty of ISPs with no or little customer contracts; anyone running open access wireless. Plenty of "open access" sites with free accounts. And any but the largest ISPs are "end users" of upstream bandwidth. The analogy of a small free access ISP and a Tor exit node is legally defensible. I know of five, six, seven that I can think of off the top of my head that are run by people I know, one of whom has started and/or been architect or operations lead for 5 or more commercial ISPs. Even more, ISP like protections are extended in the US to many "end user" sites such as blogging sites, Wikis, etc; where the site is "publishing" content but not creating it or exerting control over it, etc. This is US specific, and the case of a user in Austria is entirely unrelated to US law, but I don't know that this type of response would hold up in US court for these reasons. I am going to ping my internet law contacts in the US and see what they think, as IANAL. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
