SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??
said by TKJunkMail  : 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. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| said by SilverSurfer :said by TKJunkMail : 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. As a small government conservative, the answer is simple- it's not that we abhor government interference everywhere, but rather (in principle, if not always in practice) where it's unnecessary or counterproductive- the government (particularly the federal government) should not have their fingers in every pie.
Along with that is the belief that the government should be strong and effective in areas where it has an undeniably legitimate role- in this case law enforcement.
Here the ISP wasn't the one engaging in illegal activity, it was the the host. While they shouldn't be held responsible for every bit of illegal activity they weren't directly involved in, there is an argument to be made that they should be held accountable if they knowingly allow it to happen- essentially they'd be acting as a co-conspirator. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by dynodb :As a small government conservative, the answer is simple- it's not that we abhor government interference everywhere, but rather (in principle, if not always in practice) where it's unnecessary or counterproductive- the government (particularly the federal government) should not have their fingers in every pie. I think that's a very fair and accurate description which even liberals would agree with. The problem is in the definition of "counterproductive." It almost always boils down to the base human condition of "who's ox is being gored."
It's just that liberals don't try to dress it up in fancy terms about "free markets" and "being principled." 
Mark |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to dynodb
This is pretty much the situation here, especially considering the evidence of illegal activity was in the open, accessible from the Internet and available for all to see. In most cases such inaction would result in a service provider (in this case the ISPs) being held accountable as accessories to a felony if they knew the felonious activity was occurring and did nothing about it because it would cut off a revenue stream.
This is not about censorship or Second Amendment rights. Hosting services are not real estate leases and as service contracts generally have provisions which allow the provider to cut off services in light of blatant illegal activity. The servers at McColo were unambiguously hosting illegal activity and the upstreams knew it. Pretty much a closed case. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb :... there is an argument to be made that they should be held accountable if they knowingly allow it to happen- essentially they'd be acting as a co-conspirator. Sure, an argument can be made. I can make an argument about monkeys flying out of my butt. Doesn't make it viable OR a law, however. Argument isn't law. What law was broken BTW? What is the cause of action here besides an allegation of co-conspiracy? |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| said by SilverSurfer :said by dynodb :... there is an argument to be made that they should be held accountable if they knowingly allow it to happen- essentially they'd be acting as a co-conspirator. Sure, an argument can be made. I can make an argument about monkeys flying out of my butt. Doesn't make it viable OR a law, however. Argument isn't law. What law was broken BTW? What is the cause of action here besides an allegation of co-conspiracy? You're suggesting that the host wasn't breaking the law??? It's been pretty well established that they were.
The question is, did the ISP know, should they have reasonably known, and should they be able to turn a blind eye to it?
An analogy- you rent a house to someone dealing drugs out of it. If you had no knowledge or reason to know they were doing so, you committed no crime. If on the other hand you continued to rent the house to the drug dealers knowing they rented the house for the purpose of dealing drugs, you could be prosecuted as a co-conspirator benefitting from a criminal enterprise.
Again- it would be unreasonable to expect an ISP to police their customers for any and all possible infractions, but for a continuting operation as large as this one has to question whether they knowingly allowed this to go on in in the name of profit. |
|
