 Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to danclan
Re: Good Like I just said, what's new is that at least several of the ISP's got snagged for not taking it down, either quickly enough or at all, after getting complaints from undercover officers. All they agreed to was to keep the stuff off there, as per their own TOS, or face charges of fraud and deceptive business practices for violating that very same TOS. Their way of keeping it off? Just dump the groups completely and let the third parties worry about it. |
|
|
|
 danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
1 edit | NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and finally NO
They are common carriers and dont have liability. The "officers" could have very easily submitted letters to the posters ISP to investigate as well as submitted a take down request which would have propagated across the net and removed the "offending" image...
this happens all the time.
Nothing to see here there is NO merit in their allegations toward these carriers or usenet or web.
Existing laws on the books already give them the right to ask for materials in violation to be removed. |
|
Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | said by danclan:The "officers" could have very easily submitted letters to the posters ISP to investigate as well as submitted a take down request which would have propagated across the net and removed the "offending" image... You are right there, they could have. But that's not what they were looking into. They were looking into complaints of Verizon not removing the content (or blocking it), when they said they would. They made themselves liable. That's why all they were looking at fighting were deceptive business practice charges, and not distribution, possesion, or anything else dealing with the kiddie porn. |
|
danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | said by Jodokast96:said by danclan:The "officers" could have very easily submitted letters to the posters ISP to investigate as well as submitted a take down request which would have propagated across the net and removed the "offending" image... You are right there, they could have. But that's not what they were looking into. They were looking into complaints of Verizon not removing the content (or blocking it), when they said they would. They made themselves liable. That's why all they were looking at fighting were deceptive business practice charges, and not distribution, possesion, or anything else dealing with the kiddie porn. no you are incorrect on all levels.
they were NEVER liable. ALL traffic on usenet servers unless GENERATED by VERIZON users is common. The AG can bitch all they want about what may be sitting on verizons servers but until they actually file a legal letter asking for it to be removed and why its all pandering.
I have NEVER seen or heard from ANYONE that any AG ever submitted a take down notice to verizon.
You are wrong about and TOS violation as well as TOS applies to Verizon's customers not to Verzion itself. |
|
