This from a company that less than 6 months ago was *mandating* Win95 with Lotus Notes client and VPBuddy (an ICQ knockoff) and wouldn't allow desktop Linux inhouse (I had to run it on the sly).
We'll see. The dinosaur's legs may be twitching, but that doesn't mean that it's ready to move.
Most activity in the US has focused on tracking the *posters* of illegal material. Most of Europe, on the other hand, has been trying to move to a "notice and takedown" process for well over a year now.
Under a "notice and takedown" policy, an ISP isn't liable for non-local postings *unless and until* complaints are about are received. At that time the ISP has a window of opportunity to respond (typically by removing the content via local cancels), or be subject to liability. Note that complaints might originate with law enforcement as easily as with customers.
The major US-based worldwide ISP I worked for (as USENET admin) was positioning itself to vehemently oppose such a policy, if only for the reason that the administrative staff would be overwhelmed by the volume of tasks created.
On a related note, visit today's stories at http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/microsoft/tr ial/ where it was reported that M$ VP Myhrvold admitted under corss-examination that the reasons behind Microsoft's restrictive agreements with ISPs to push IE was the fear that Netscape would win in side-by-side comparisons. This is in *direct* contradiction of his written testimony, where he states that IE's share increase was due to "superior product".
Slashdot Mirror
This from a company that less than 6 months ago was *mandating* Win95 with Lotus Notes client and VPBuddy (an ICQ knockoff) and wouldn't allow desktop Linux inhouse (I had to run it on the sly).
We'll see. The dinosaur's legs may be twitching, but that doesn't mean that it's ready to move.
-- Cerebus
...deserves it. 8)
Seriously, though, if he's running an internet-accessible system without proc limits or reasonable timeout values, it's his own damn fault.
It takes all of a minute or two to write a process-reaper, fer Gad's sake.
-- Cerebus
Most activity in the US has focused on tracking the *posters* of illegal material. Most of Europe, on the other hand, has been trying to move to a "notice and takedown" process for well over a year now.
Under a "notice and takedown" policy, an ISP isn't liable for non-local postings *unless and until* complaints are about are received. At that time the ISP has a window of opportunity to respond (typically by removing the content via local cancels), or be subject to liability. Note that complaints might originate with law enforcement as easily as with customers.
The major US-based worldwide ISP I worked for (as USENET admin) was positioning itself to vehemently oppose such a policy, if only for the reason that the administrative staff would be overwhelmed by the volume of tasks created.
-- Cerebus
On a related note, visit today's stories at http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/microsoft/tr ial/ where it was reported that M$ VP Myhrvold admitted under corss-examination that the reasons behind Microsoft's restrictive agreements with ISPs to push IE was the fear that Netscape would win in side-by-side comparisons. This is in *direct* contradiction of his written testimony, where he states that IE's share increase was due to "superior product".
I hesitate to say perjury... nah, no I don't.
A DII-COE for Linux would be DoD-wide, not service-specific. This would be a giant's *leap* forward.
-- Cerebus