Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I suspect that the answer to this is something which will only be decided by high paid lawyers standing before an appeal or supreme court.
The way I read it, this would cover a home page as well, as it offers customers (family) access to information (your pictures of the kids, blogs, whatever). Does this make sense to anyone else?
No matter where you go, there you are. So Enjoy it.
Er, no you can sue spammers directly. Well, probably you can't, but it looked like you had the subject and object backwards, so I just switched them for you.
Definitely covers me - I have a co-located server with clients websites running on it. I rent all my bandwidth though - would never really have thought of myself as an ISP, although I guess I fall under the auspice of "Internet Service Provider" - the typical image is either a dial-up merchant, or someone like Colt/BT/Level3/(insert huge company here)
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
How are "consumers" defined? Members of the general public who pay money to receive these services? If it's something like that, then those of us who run mail (etc.) services only to non-consumers shouldn't be affected. Right?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
...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.
As I (IANAL) read it, it seems narrowly tailored to include AOL ("proprietary content") and exclude DSL-providing Baby Bells and possibly cable companies ("not... telecommunications services") (I'm not sure whether cable companies are "telecommunications services".)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
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.'
Consumers = the public in this case.
Internet access packages = typically non-free.
Selling it on any appreciable scale = often commercial.
I believe these are the interpretations they're aiming for, and the ones that will be upheld should they ever be taken to task.
The coolest voice ever.
Hey, I run the linux box that is the firewall between our home LAN and the cable modem. I provide internet access to my wife (and our parrots, when they play with the keyboard). I do all the troubleshooting of things like email and web-access problems. So can I am obviously qualify as an ISP, right? It'd be fun to be able to sue the spammers for DoS of our cable modem and wasting our time.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Time for me to declare myself as a non-profit organization since they make ANYBODY running a server sound like a business or an organization in itself.
Should be proud of a 5 year old kid now, he runs a quake server, he's a businessman in his own right. Go government! Doing their job to encourage my kids to get into business!
"a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet"
reword it to...
"a service that enables users to access...the Internet"
I think the list of "things" confuses the definition. but it only says things that ALLOW this access, not the services themself.
Granted, I still haven't even been able to find the full text of the bill anywhere in order to verify this.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
"Far more worring, is the provision of an opt-out list. If the world can see that my e-mail, even if only so that I can say I don't like spam"
A technilogical solution to this problem would be a one way hash algorithm. The government would keep a list of email addresses which are converted into one way hashes. These hash lists are given to mail list operators (read spammers). These mail list operators only have to convert an email they have and see if it's hash matches another. Thus they can't get email addresses from the opt-out list only compare with addresses they already have in their possession.
Why should it make that distinction? A university providing access to its students, or a "free" (i.e. advertiser-supported) dial-up provider differs fundamentally from AOL or Earthlink or MSN or your local independent ISP only in its economic model.
"it seems narrowly tailored to include AOL ("proprietary content") and exclude DSL-providing Baby Bells and possibly cable companies ("not... telecommunications services")"
Broadband services usually provide e-mail service to residential accounts and assorted other services (e.g. DNS) to business accounts. I think this phrase is intended to single out the backbone operators, folks whose customers are all other ISPs.
Someone mod this up. If RIAA is spamming Kazaa, AND you are deemed an internet access provider by virtue of your allowing others to access your files, then it sounds like you could do that.
Of course, there are many reasons you might not want to do that. For instance, if you are sharing copyrighted music, they may file a counterclaim against you.
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.
You could consider a protocol (such as HTTP or FTP) to be a service that offers these very things, so could we possibly glean from this that only a protocol can sue? Damn sneaky if you ask me...
"I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic particles."
I agree... that is one downfall to my proposed solution.
However, that would require a bruteforce of going through a list (calculated or static) and creating addresses and then checking them in the hash. If they can do that (and they do already, I'm certain) then why bother with checking the list anyway to see if an address is on there or not? Unless they really do want to abide by the list, they wouldn't bother with the check and instead would just use the method you describe to send messages to.
My impression of the "anti-spam" legislation is that it is pro-spam, and one more example of U.S. government corruption.
Dave Letterman said, "When you make out your part of the check for $87,000,000,000 to help Iraq, remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton." (Halliburton is Vice-President Dick Cheney's company.)
If you read a law and can't understand it, it is by that very fact a corrupt law. The reason you can't understand the "anti-spam" law is that they don't want you to understand it. It is intended to accomplish some hidden purpose.
As with most things in American law, it isn't what is right that matters, it is who has the most money.
Because as with most things on the web, it isn't what is right that gets heard, it is what more suckers are willing to repeat.
As I have been reading the above comments people have said, "HEY! I am an ISP!" But there are certian legal problems with that statment. If you happen to be under a Terms of Service, like I am, they prohibt such things. So even if you do happen to get yourself declared an ISP then you are opening up yourself for a law suit from your ISP or being disconnected from the internet.
From Cox Communications acceptable use policy: "Servers. You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing server-like functionality in connection with the Service, unless expressly authorized by Cox. "
Further invesitagtion revelled simular acceptable use policies. So thus the problem remains -- you claim your an ISP, your connection provider says you must not be, and then your in a quandry.
Some things to think about...
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
He MAY have meant that his woody box allows HIM to access the internet, just as mine does. Also most ISPs now accept multiple users per houshold and will even supply a router to help you do that if you wish. Some people use a Linux box to do the NAT function as well. Nothing wrong with that.
Another reasonable interpretation is that the owners of the wires that support the internet cannot dictate what content is sent across them. That is a good thing.
I do disagree with your example of unreasonable human beings. That judge was not an misinterpreting the law. He knew what it meant. He didn't agree with it, he challenged it, and he lost. I applaud his integrity, even though I disagree with his stance.
Laws are not the final word. Congress can pass all the poorly-written, ineffective laws they want, but they still have to stand up in court when challenged.
blog
Well, since I have my linux machine, which is always connected via DSL, set up to also provide dialup ppp service, I am an ISP.. I set this up so that if I'm out and around town and need dialup access, I can dial into my machine and NAT through my DSL connection while also having direct access to resources on my network.. It works very well.. Since I also have accounts on my servers for my friends and family, and all of them can dial in and use this service, even under a more strict interpretation I would be an ISP..
You don't have to be a business to generate spam. All you need is a single mail server.
Are you arguing that your right to operate a personal mail server trumps my right not to receive spam?
Well, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.
So, welcome to the land of politics and the courts. That's how things work around here. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Living in a democracy obliges you to accept the outcome, or keep on fighting for what you believe in and be willing to accept the consequences.
The alternative is to anoint someone to decide what's right and wrong. I don't like that option.
As James Madison argued, the U.S. Constitution is a means to balance conflicting interests to the benefit of the most people most of the time. It isn't a means to determine moral correctness.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"