GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??
The size of the operation involved says that these 2 companies looked the other way while all these illegal operations were going on. If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | unforunately it will be up and running in a week with a new name and new servers.  Nice hit anyway  |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to GOLFnSUN
You're damned right they looked the other way. People have been reporting this stuff directly to (at least) Hurricane Electric for quite awhile. They certainly knew of any criminal activity and their failure to address it until it was blown up in a major media outlet makes them culpable, especially since HE is not an "ISP" in the retail sense the law anticipates. |
|
DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA
·Optimum Online
| reply to GOLFnSUN
I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth they sell them. Why would they want to? That is a very dangerous slope to start down.
If I sell paper clips and rubber bands, does that make me responsible for making sure children don't launch paper clips into another child's eye?
The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by DVOOR8  :I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth they sell them. Why would they want to? That is a very dangerous slope to start down. If I sell paper clips and rubber bands, does that make me responsible for making sure children don't launch paper clips into another child's eye? The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. They have been notified for ages. They just made too much money to do anything about it until it made the National press in the form of the Wash Post story. Then the negative PR value MADE them take action. And when notified of problems, they should have started their own investigation and not depend on some reporters to do it for them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
1 edit | reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN : If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed. Whatever happened to allegedly small government conservatives who abhor government interference in every little thing? I guess that only applies when it comes to their portfolios and Wall Street. Based on the junk you post here I am very sure that if you had stock in either company, you'd be singing an entirely different tune...one of deregulation instead of accountability. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to DVOOR8
said by DVOOR8 :I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth they sell them. Why would they want to? That is a very dangerous slope to start down. If I sell paper clips and rubber bands, does that make me responsible for making sure children don't launch paper clips into another child's eye? The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. If you own a home, and you lease it out, and multiple people inform you that the people leasing your home are using it host sex with children, you wouldn't do anything about it?
Your response would be "landlords don't have the duty to police the way tenants use the home" ?
I doubt it very much. I bet you'd be the first one there, with a shotgun, a baseball bat, and ready to kick some ass. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to GOLFnSUN
"TK Junk Mail
The size of the operation involved says that these 2 companies looked the other way while all these illegal operations were going on. If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed."
--
Here's another one that I kind of agree with....
--
BlooMe |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Cox HSI
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :The size of the operation involved says that these 2 companies looked the other way while all these illegal operations were going on. If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed. ISPs should be free from RESPONSIBILITY unless the law has absolute proof they had knowledge of felonies occuring on their network and took no action in disabling their access and/or reporting them to the authorities.
I really think the way this should work is:
1, ISP receives tones of reports and decides to look into it, finds illegal activity, immidiately cuts them off and alerts authorities OR
2, ISP receives tons of reports, does nothing, the government agency in charge of overseeing them receives reports as well (because people will realize the ISP isn't doing their job), government comes in and orders ISP to shut down access, ISP complies.
Either of those scenarios works, #1 is ideal. What happened here is that the ISP did not want to do their job right away, and #2 didn't occur either because people didn't report it to the authorities, or because the authorities did nothing to get the ISP to cut off access (or maybe they don't have the power to do that, which they should).
The only time the ISP should be punished (besides by the bad PR it receives) is if it directly violates an order of the court or other governing authority. |
|
DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA
·Optimum Online
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :said by DVOOR8 :I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth they sell them. Why would they want to? That is a very dangerous slope to start down. If I sell paper clips and rubber bands, does that make me responsible for making sure children don't launch paper clips into another child's eye? The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. They have been notified for ages. They just made too much money to do anything about it until it made the National press in the form of the Wash Post story. Then the negative PR value MADE them take action. And when notified of problems, they should have started their own investigation and not depend on some reporters to do it for them. Bandwidth providers are not investigative authorities and have no place doing any investigation into illegal activity or another companies actions.
If the proper authorities were notified by anyone or had a reason to act, suppliers of bandwidth ALWAYS comply with whatever law authorities request of them. Sounds to me that even law enforcement wasn't onto this. |
|
DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA
·Optimum Online
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :said by DVOOR8 :I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth they sell them. Why would they want to? That is a very dangerous slope to start down. If I sell paper clips and rubber bands, does that make me responsible for making sure children don't launch paper clips into another child's eye? The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. If you own a home, and you lease it out, and multiple people inform you that the people leasing your home are using it host sex with children, you wouldn't do anything about it? Your response would be "landlords don't have the duty to police the way tenants use the home" ? I doubt it very much. I bet you'd be the first one there, with a shotgun, a baseball bat, and ready to kick some ass. Wow, that is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have seen. I would do the right thing and contact the proper authorities and handle it like someone who cares about the outcome. I am not going to try and battle crime myself nor launch my own investigation for publicity which is what this was. |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
2 edits | reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :The size of the operation involved says that the DOJ looked the other way while all these illegal operations were going on. There, fixed it for you. The current laws give the DOJ what they need to act on this. If this has been reported for ages, why did the DOJ failed to step in to shut down McColo? If the evidence was so clear, why weren't existing laws used?
Nothing in the existing laws prevents the DOJ from shutting dows these operations.
There's no need to burden ISPs with more RIAA/MPAA friendly and innefective legislation. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to DVOOR8
said by DVOOR8 :said by Rob :said by DVOOR8 :I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth they sell them. Why would they want to? That is a very dangerous slope to start down. If I sell paper clips and rubber bands, does that make me responsible for making sure children don't launch paper clips into another child's eye? The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. If you own a home, and you lease it out, and multiple people inform you that the people leasing your home are using it host sex with children, you wouldn't do anything about it? Your response would be "landlords don't have the duty to police the way tenants use the home" ? I doubt it very much. I bet you'd be the first one there, with a shotgun, a baseball bat, and ready to kick some ass. Wow, that is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have seen. I would do the right thing and contact the proper authorities and handle it like someone who cares about the outcome. I am not going to try and battle crime myself nor launch my own investigation for publicity which is what this was. And what if the authorities did nothing? You would just ignore it?
Just let them continue to do what they do without taking any action?
Where does it become your responsibility? Never? |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by Rob :Where does it become your responsibility? Never? Most States have laws that punish and/or strongly disincentivize vigilantes. Suggest you become acquainted with yours otherwise you may find yourself sharing a jail cell with the same individual you thought you had a right to enforce the law upon. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| reply to GOLFnSUN
It's not the responsibility of "carriers" to determine what is and is not criminal activity. Anyone who thinks there is a crime being committed should contact the legal authorities (police, FBI, whatever) and let them make the determination. Technically, carriers should not be monitoring the details of what customers are doing (wire-tapping). Carriers should simply cooperate with authorities, sometimes initiating action when they receive complaints from others, but not acting unilaterally to determine whether crimes are being committed. The authorities may want to allow certain activities to continue briefly so as to collect and trace evidence. |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs: | reply to Rob
If the evidence is there, why would the authorities ignore it? |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to GOLFnSUN
it is not the job of a carrier to police every gigabit. that said if hard evidence is brought to them(and i mean real evidence not the bullshit Un-Evidence the RIAA uses against piracy)then they should act and turn the pipe off. but they should also work at this with law enforcement, cutting the pipe might spook the perps and make them destroy data. cutting the pipe with an FBI sting happening minimizes their chance to destroy the drives.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
| reply to DVOOR8
said by DVOOR8 :Bandwidth providers are not investigative authorities and have no place doing any investigation into illegal activity or another companies actions. If the proper authorities were notified by anyone or had a reason to act, suppliers of bandwidth ALWAYS comply with whatever law authorities request of them. Sounds to me that even law enforcement wasn't onto this. The idea that you MUST wait for law enforcement is ridiculous.
If I am a landlord and someone notifies me(or I become aware in whatever manner) that one of my tenants is engaging in illegal activity on my property, then I am ABSOLUTELY obligated to investigate such activity and I am well within my rights to throw the f**k out anyone whom I find to be engaged in such.
wig
--
Please keep your f---ing religion to yourself. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to DVOOR8
said by DVOOR8 :I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth This is one of those things where, taken to an extreme (in either direction) it's a problem. I wouldn't want to make providers responsible for anything customers do. But, they shouldn't be immune from any responsibility when it's obvious they turned a blind eye, and were complicit to some extent.
There are many aspects of the law which involve "what a reasonable person" would be expected to know (do). There would be nothing wrong with holding providers to that standard.
What I want to know is, where was Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)? All we hear from their fans is how wonderful it was for EFF to launch a personal injury lawsuit against telcos. Why didn't EFF file a class action against these parties?
Mark |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way!!
said by GOLFnSUN :The size of the operation involved says that these 2 companies looked the other way while all these illegal operations were going on. If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed. I agree, if the issue is so large that the Ops center had to be aware, or we have evidence that they have been notified of a smaller issue.
BTW, this kind of cooperation between criminals and pipe providers has been going on since the beginning.
10 years ago, I would edit the garbage groups out of the Netscape NNTP group lists, for my friends who frequented news groups. The group names were appalling. When I attempted to find out who actually owned the servers that held the material, all trails led to uu.net.
With mods either creating or allowing groups like alt.binaries.beat.babies.to.death to be created; someone there had to know what they were hosting.
I spent over a year trying to get someone, anyone to care. I emailed local and national press, child protection groups, even talked to folks in law enforcement. Nobody thought it worth their time.
I remember one conversation with David Caton, head of the Florida Family Association. I tried to impress on him the value of eliminating child porn hosts. However, he was too laser focused on his campaign against homosexual causes to divert any resources to this cause.
After a year+½ or so, I finally gave up. I guess it wasn't yet fashionable enough to merit any effort.
NV |
|
