[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
tor
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd<adrian at creative.net.au> wrote:
> 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?
ISPs are not common carriers. Geoff Huston is - as always - the guy
who explains it best.
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-3/uncommon_carrier.html
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Follow-Ups:
- tor
- From: adrian at creative.net.au (Adrian Chadd)
- tor
- From: jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)
- 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)
- tor
- From: adrian at creative.net.au (Adrian Chadd)
- Prev by Date:
tor
- Next by Date:
tor
- Previous by thread:
tor
- Next by thread:
tor
- Index(es):