Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?

[Paul M Moriarty <pmm () igtc com>]

On Sep 8, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Ned Fleming wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:49:50 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:14:48 PDT, Rob Thompson said:
> >
> > > this as sheer laziness and quite frankly it's rather pathetic.   
> > > Passing
> > > the buck isn't okay.  We count on the schools to raise our kids  
> > > and the
> > > ISP to police the interwebs.  Bullshit!
> >
> > It may come as a surprise to you - but a large number of people  
> > *do* count
> > on the schools to do a large part of the educating and socializing  
> > of the young
> > ones. There's an awful amount of stuff that kids learn in school  
> > that parents
> > are *not* in a good position to teach - everything from Egyptian  
> > history to how
> > to play well with others on a softball team.  Might want to pick a  
> > better
> > analogy - the days when we could all homeschool our kids are *long*  
> > gone, if
> > they ever existed at all...)
>
> I think Rob has a point, though perhaps he didn't express it well.
>
> This ISP "knew" that web site X was selling fraudulent (brand?)
> handbags.
>
> I wonder how they knew? Their level of knowledge is perhaps key.


If the ISP is doing the "See no evil, hear no evil..." then I believe  
the term for that is "willful ignorance" ( beautiful phrase in an  
oxymoronic way).
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.