[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

tor

Subject: tor
From: adrian at creative.net.au (Adrian Chadd)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:14:20 +0800
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <m2k531l8oc.wl%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <1E8B940C5E21014AB8BE70B975D40EDB016282E9@bert.HiberniaAtlantic.local> <[email protected]> <1E8B940C5E21014AB8BE70B975D40EDB016282EF@bert.HiberniaAtlantic.local> <[email protected]> <1E8B940C5E21014AB8BE70B975D40EDB016282F4@bert.HiberniaAtlantic.local> <[email protected]>

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an
> interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by
> simply running a TOR exit node.

Ah, but would an ISP which currently enjoys whatever the current definition
of "common carrier" is these days, running a TOR node, still be covered by
said provisions?

Adrian

Follow-Ups:
- tor
  - From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)

References:
- tor
  - From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- tor
  - From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen)
- tor
  - From: Rod.Beck at hiberniaatlantic.com (Rod Beck)
- tor
  - From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen)
- tor
  - From: Rod.Beck at hiberniaatlantic.com (Rod Beck)
- tor
  - From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen)
- tor
  - From: Rod.Beck at hiberniaatlantic.com (Rod Beck)
- tor
  - From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)

Prev by Date: tor
Next by Date: tor
Previous by thread: tor
Next by thread: tor
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread