Who Is An ISP?

happynut writes "Last Friday there was an article about the new anti-spam U.S. legislation that might become law. Within this bill, the only non-government party that can sue for damages is an 'Internet Access Service' (Page 44, line 1 (Sec 7(g)), and Page 8 line 15 (Sec 3(11)) of the bill). Some reports have treated 'Internet Access Service' as the same as an ISP. But if you follow down the definition listed in Sec 3(11) (see 47 USC Sec 231(e)(4)), it defines an Internet Access Service as: '(4) Internet access service -- The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services.' My question is: isn't this definition so broad as to cover all of us who run a mail server? It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public; it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'"

Comments

Re:Consumers

[Tackhead]

> It means that unless you have "consumers" using your "Internet access service", you're powerless against the spammers according to this law.

I have a NAT box and a router. My roommate/parents/grandmother pay me $1/year to administer it. I have a contract proving that.

uh oh ... libraries ?

[Tacoguy]

is it possible that if a spam relay gets placed on a public access terminal in a public library (and many rural ones don't have expertise to handle this) ...

I understand the accountability issues with this but can we deprive the public of access to information they would not otherwise be able to get.

We are at a point it seems to me of having to make hard decisions but are looking in the wrong places.
TG

Re:Consumers

[brianosaurus]

IANA Economist, but if I recall from my few Econ classes in college, and "economic good" doesn't necessarily mean that you pay for them. It has more to do with scarcity and "opportunity costs" than with money. Here's a definition:

ECONOMIC GOOD:
A tangible item produced with society's limited resources for the purpose of satisfying wants and needs. As a general notion, the phrase economic good also commonly includes intangible services produced with society's limited resources for the purpose of satisfying wants and needs. A synonymous term for economic good is scarce good.

So if you spend your (scarce) time setting up a server (resources) to provide email and web services for your family (satisfying their want or need), then it is an economic good. If you family uses those services, then they are consumers. So I guess that makes you the provider of an Internet Access Service.

and anotehr one -- make hash function expensive

[PaulBu]

MD5 would be a bad idea since it's optimized to be EASY to compute. For the opt-out list an EXPENSIVE strong hash can be specified. Again, remember how old UNIX crypt(3C) function was deliberately slowed down to prevent this kind of dictionary attack. Solaris manpage still says: "It is based on a one-way encryption algorithm with variations intended (among other things) to frustrate use of hardware implementations of a key search".

Actually, making this function REALLY expensive is a good way to move some $$ from spammers to chip makers and maybe even make spam unprofitable! Update list often enough and change salt values so that before every e-mail is sent an expensive hash has to be actually _computed_ (rather than looked-up in a huge database).

Paul B.

Forget it - You won't be suing anyone.

[MeddlesomeKids]

If you are an ISP and want to sue, you can only sue violating spammers. But this bill defines what "spam" and "spammers" are, and it's probably not the definition you or I would use.

According to this new bill, so long as the email has an "opt out" link and is not sent to anyone on the Do Not Spam list, then that email message is not, according to the proposed law, spam.

In other words, nothing will change. And, if you live in California or Virginia, this new bill has less protection than state laws, and will override and _decrease_ your legal protections from spam.

So, the question of whether you fit the definition of an ISP is somewhat moot. Sadly, the law specifically prevents consumers and businesses from suing.

IANAL, but it seems more like a "Pro-Spam" bill than an "Anti Spam" bill to me.

Hopefully the "Do Not Spam" list part of the bill has some teeth.

Bad Law - kills states remedies

[anagama]

Look at pg 47, line 16:

This law kills all the state's remedies that have been developed to provide recipients a way to sue spammers. This law has lower fines. This law frekin' sucks!