3 ms·

Isn't this because of the various safe harbor provisions ? If you start policing content then you cease to be a mere pipe and your gain much higher legal respon

by ajnin 8y ago

Isn't this because of the various safe harbor provisions ? If you start policing content then you cease to be a mere pipe and your gain much higher legal responsibility for whatever content passes through your systems. In general I think it is a very bad idea to give this kind of policing power in the hands of private companies. They tend to be very conservative to avoid legal liability and they can also take arbitrary decisions. When Cloudfront decided to cutoff the Daily Stormer they crossed a line and many people were justifiably upset. It's the job of the legal system.

hankhill 8y ago
Policing content isn't the same thing as stopping active damage to the internet. Even in the US where free speech is king, you can't go around slashing tires or taking down stop signs and say it's protected by the 1st amendment or something.
jerkstate 8y ago
announcing bgp routes that someone else owns is completely cut and dried wrongdoing, there are no shades of gray there. it's like stealing postal mail from someone else's mailbox.
Kadin 8y ago
If someone reports to you that a bad actor (spammer, bruteforcer, whatever) is on your network, it would seem to eliminate your plausible deniability and safe harbor defense. The real problem is economic; for any given ISP, they are going to side with their customers over some rando complainer most of the time. You don't get rich by disconnecting your own customers unless you absolutely have to. Sometimes, this is good, if you're the one who might get disconnected (Cox was a great ISP to have, because for many years they would blithely ignore Bittorrent complaints and give you a dozen or so 'strikes' without consequence); it's awful and obnoxious if you are on the receiving end of an attack, and some shitlord low-budget VPS reseller or datacenter operator won't unplug the control server or whatever, or drags their feet to a ridiculous extent. All about whose ox is getting gored.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >If someone reports to you that a bad actor (spammer, bruteforcer, whatever) is on your network, it would seem to eliminate your plausible deniability and safe harbor defense. Sure, that seems like it could never be abused at all.

by ajnin 8y ago

hankhill 8y ago

Policing content isn't the same thing as stopping active damage to the internet. Even in the US where free speech is king, you can't go around slashing tires or taking down stop signs and say it's protected by the 1st amendment or something.

jerkstate 8y ago

announcing bgp routes that someone else owns is completely cut and dried wrongdoing, there are no shades of gray there. it's like stealing postal mail from someone else's mailbox.

Kadin 8y ago

If someone reports to you that a bad actor (spammer, bruteforcer, whatever) is on your network, it would seem to eliminate your plausible deniability and safe harbor defense. The real problem is economic; for any given ISP, they are going to side with their customers over some rando complainer most of the time. You don't get rich by disconnecting your own customers unless you absolutely have to. Sometimes, this is good, if you're the one who might get disconnected (Cox was a great ISP to have, because for many years they would blithely ignore Bittorrent complaints and give you a dozen or so 'strikes' without consequence); it's awful and obnoxious if you are on the receiving end of an attack, and some shitlord low-budget VPS reseller or datacenter operator won't unplug the control server or whatever, or drags their feet to a ridiculous extent. All about whose ox is getting gored.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>If someone reports to you that a bad actor (spammer, bruteforcer, whatever) is on your network, it would seem to eliminate your plausible deniability and safe harbor defense. Sure, that seems like it could never be abused at all.