Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Known for Defending Their Customer's Rights?
lieumorrison asks: "With the recent examples of some US based Internet service providers going overboard in their desire to stay on the good side of the law, I ask Slashdot readers: What ISPs have a reputation of protecting their costumers by not arbitrarily giving in to C&D orders and such, without first contacting their lawyers? (ISPs hosting in the US or abroad; based on reactions in the past)"
If google were to be an ISP, they should buy Speakeasy, since it would go well with their "Do no evil" mantra.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I assume this is the reason the response rate on this is so low. It's an intriguing question, though.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I don't know that it means that they are "clueful", maybe they just don't care. I get a huge amount of spam, port scans, and out-right hack attempts from their IP blocks, and they don't seem to really care.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Verizon has repeatedly blocked giving up subscriber information to the RIAA/MPAA, and they even beat them in court on the matter. However, it's not because Verizon loves you and wants to protect your rights. It's because doing the work of the RIAA/MPAA costs them money, and that's what's important to them.
This is not really the same argument. You are basically saying rifle companies don't have to be responsible for your firearm actions. ISPs aren't double sending your TCP packets to some alternate destination without you knowing.
Though this whole ISP privacy article is silly cause no one abuse your info more than credit card companies.
And they sued a dutch spammer into oblivion, tried to get cable providers to open up to other ISP's, held a conference on their 10th year on copyright issues, put some money into bits of freedom, have a large anonymous ftp server with goodies for all, provide IPv6 services... Lets just say they are on the good side. They do put letters from the Dutch RIAA through to their customers though. Anonymously, of course :)
This is not that strange, since they have sprung from a now defunct hacker magazine called hacktic. more information here
That's exactly what I'm saying.
I am not a lawyer, but here's the very rough deal:
Someone who is transmitting information as a "common carrier" isn't responsible for that content under very broad rules.
Someone who ISN'T a common carrier still isn't automatically responsible. There's lots of ways to NOT be liable, but this is one especially broad and reliable kind of protection and companies don't want to give it up.
1. A _hosting_ company can make whatever AUP they want, and they can enforce it; they aren't acting as a common carrier anyway. A hosting company can always be liable for what they're hosting (to some extent, after they know)
2. An _access_ company is protected by common carrier rules. So if your DSL provider prevents you from seeing certain sites then they become somewhat liable for all the content passed over their lines.
It doesn't count if the filtering is optional (most family-friendly) or if it is technical (most kinds of AV protection; anything supposedly to keep bandwidth down.)
So there's a narrow techincal distinction in there somewhere, but the rough idea is that people who are _bandwidth_ providers don't want to stop you from accessing something based on content, because it reduces their protection.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
All the major Canadian ISPs (except Videotron) fought the CRIA when they attempted to sue filsharers, and they won. Even Rogers who has other media investments (TV studios, etc.) fought the CRIA.
My current ISP (Rogers) I've had good service with (very fast), except for the 60GB/month bandwidth cap they just put in place.
The easiest way to expliain it is to equate it with directing traffic.
If you cause someone to have an accident when directing trafic, you are at fault or at minimum share in the responibility for that accident. Even if the accident could have been avioded but wasn't because you gave some one the right of way when someone else had it.
ISPs assume this directing traffic role when they start forcibly filtering content. They are distinguishing who has the right of way and who doesn't. When they do this they can be responcible for laws violated because they gave the permision to do so.
ISPs currently act like the little old lady at a four way stop sign who forgot what order to go in. They just sit there and wait for someone to tell them to go or wait until everyone else has went. By doing this she has probably caused an accident by confusing people around here but no direct action caused anyone to do anything in particular. When ISPs do this, they are waiting for someone else to act as the trafic controler so they are completley removed from the actions.
Some laws provide for this security while even more are implied from court rulings based on simular circumstances. You wouldn't be liable if someone rented a house from you and ran a kiddy porn ring inside it, unless you told them it was ok to do so.
The only question is how much liability or responcibility is imposed for what actions. When you allow file swapping but not drug sales, you are providing a place and might be just as liable as some of the P2P site or tracker sight that have recently got into trouble. If you turn a blind eye on all of it untill someone (with authority) tells you to make somethign stop, you have removed yourself from the mix.