In this case, the ISP was informed that a particular newsgroup was carrying kiddie porn, and months later was still storing the group on its NNTP servers. Prohibiting ISPs from knowingly storing illegal pictures on their own servers doesn't seem to be a big deal to me.
No, this is a very narrow case; the ISP was held responsible for content it stored on servers it owned, not on content accessed by its TCP/IP service on servers it didn't own.
A bit better analogy: if you give rent a car to someone and he drives it to an illegal arms dealer and gets a machine gun, that's one thing. If an illegal arms dealer sells machine guns with your knowledge out of a storefront you loan to him, that's another.
The difference is that NNTP stores the data on the ISP's server. If I give you a TCP/IP connection that allows you to download kiddie porn off a remote server, that's one thing; if I knowingly store kiddie porn on one of my computers for you to download, that's another.
No. The ISP was in trouble for continuing to host kiddie porn on local NNTP servers after being informed that it was doing so. The equivalent would be the phone company letting a terrorist keep an office in its building after being informed that the terrorist was launching attacks from it.
The real key is that the ISP was informed months ahead of time of the content of the newsgroup, and didn't discontinue it. Thus the ISP knew its servers were being used to store kiddie porn, and took no steps to stop it.
The ISP was held liable not because their machines could be used to access kiddie porn, but because they were keeping kiddie porn on their servers. It's the distinction between renting someone a car which may allow them to go to an illegal arms dealer, and selling them the weapons yourself.
The ISP was informed the newsgroup carried kiddie porn.
The ISP did not remove the kiddie porn from its NNTP servers.
The ISP was thus knowingly in posession of kiddie porn on its servers, and knowingly making it available for further distribution.
The distinction here is between providing a link to kiddie porn on your website and hosting kiddie porn on your website; between telling someone where they can buy an illegal weapon and selling them out of your trunk.
Thus, I don't really consider this a threat to anything, even if it had been set as an actual precedent.
Yes, Hong Kong isn't a country, but it is ruled by its own set of economic laws distinct from those of both China and of every other country on Earth. Taiwan, too, is not a separate country from the PRC, according the ROC, PRC, and every government that recognizes either the PRC or the ROC.
Second, do you have numbers to back that up? The Heritage Foundation ranks countries 1-5 on trade freedom (1 being best), and Singapore is a 1 while Japan and the US are 2. Sure, it's a broad brush, and the methodology is imperfect, but it's the best data I've seen...
I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to someone who responded to your post. In short, I was defending your post against an attack, not attacking your post.
The "nuber 1 ranked country is also the most free" is by definition -- it was a ECONOMIC FREEDOM RANKING LIST. On a list that ranks countries by banana production the the #1 producer of bananas ranks #1.
If you want the context, you can go to the Heritage Foundation website yourself. That's why I named my source -- so I wouldn't have to post twenty paragraphs worth of criteria, standards, and methodology to/.
As the UNDHR protects my right to property, the freedom of opinion clause may not be used to call for the abolition of my property rights. Therefore communists can be imprisoned for advocating their beliefs without violating the UNDHR.
The UNDHR is crap. The U.S. should lead the world and repudiate this arbitrary and self-contradictory pile of shit.
The famous example is batteries. For years, competing battery companies tried to improve the cardboard-sided battery. And one day, the wife of an engineer suggested that he use a can.
The competitors filed suit to have the patent invalidated as "obvious". The judge merely asked how long the competitor had been trying to develop an improved battery and how much they had spent; after being told years and millions, he dismissed the case.
Actually, the early U.S. economy was dependent on British capital, with much of the profits going back to British investors.
And the Filipinos have not been an example of laissez-faire capitalism. Its rank on the Heritage Foundation world-wide Index of Economic Freedom is 81 with an overall score of 3.05 and a trade freedom score of 3.0. Let's compare that to other in-region countries:
Hong Kong, rank 1, overall 1.30, trade 1.0
Singapore, rank 2, overall 1.55, trade 1.0
Japan, rank 14, overall 2.05, trade 2.0
Taiwan, rank 20, overall 2.10, trade 2.0
Thailand, rank 21, overall 2.20, trade 2.0
South Korea, rank 27, overall 2.25, trade 3.0
The Phillipines are a lousy example of a "laissez-faire" economy, either overall or in the area of trade, ranking lower than such radically free-market countries as democratic-socialist dominated Sweeden (rank 29, overall 2.25, trade 2.0).
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, the ISP was informed that a particular newsgroup was carrying kiddie porn, and months later was still storing the group on its NNTP servers. Prohibiting ISPs from knowingly storing illegal pictures on their own servers doesn't seem to be a big deal to me.
Wrong. This non-precedent, narrowly construed, merely says you may not knowingly store illegal content on your own NNTP server.
The key is that the ISP was told about the kiddie porn on the particular newsgroup and, months later, was still keeping the newsgroup on its servers.
No, this is a very narrow case; the ISP was held responsible for content it stored on servers it owned, not on content accessed by its TCP/IP service on servers it didn't own.
Knowingly storing kiddie porn on your own NNTP server is wrong.
A bit better analogy: if you give rent a car to someone and he drives it to an illegal arms dealer and gets a machine gun, that's one thing. If an illegal arms dealer sells machine guns with your knowledge out of a storefront you loan to him, that's another.
The difference is that NNTP stores the data on the ISP's server. If I give you a TCP/IP connection that allows you to download kiddie porn off a remote server, that's one thing; if I knowingly store kiddie porn on one of my computers for you to download, that's another.
No. The ISP was in trouble for continuing to host kiddie porn on local NNTP servers after being informed that it was doing so. The equivalent would be the phone company letting a terrorist keep an office in its building after being informed that the terrorist was launching attacks from it.
The real key is that the ISP was informed months ahead of time of the content of the newsgroup, and didn't discontinue it. Thus the ISP knew its servers were being used to store kiddie porn, and took no steps to stop it.
And if you take a narrow interpretation, it says you cannot knowingly operate a server containing kiddie porn whether or not you're an ISP.
The ISP was held liable not because their machines could be used to access kiddie porn, but because they were keeping kiddie porn on their servers. It's the distinction between renting someone a car which may allow them to go to an illegal arms dealer, and selling them the weapons yourself.
Not exactly, however. Napster doen't host the MP3s on its computers; the ISP was hosting the kiddie porn on its NNTP servers.
The ISP was informed the newsgroup carried kiddie porn.
The ISP did not remove the kiddie porn from its NNTP servers.
The ISP was thus knowingly in posession of kiddie porn on its servers, and knowingly making it available for further distribution.
The distinction here is between providing a link to kiddie porn on your website and hosting kiddie porn on your website; between telling someone where they can buy an illegal weapon and selling them out of your trunk.
Thus, I don't really consider this a threat to anything, even if it had been set as an actual precedent.
Yes, Hong Kong isn't a country, but it is ruled by its own set of economic laws distinct from those of both China and of every other country on Earth. Taiwan, too, is not a separate country from the PRC, according the ROC, PRC, and every government that recognizes either the PRC or the ROC.
Second, do you have numbers to back that up? The Heritage Foundation ranks countries 1-5 on trade freedom (1 being best), and Singapore is a 1 while Japan and the US are 2. Sure, it's a broad brush, and the methodology is imperfect, but it's the best data I've seen...
I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to someone who responded to your post. In short, I was defending your post against an attack, not attacking your post.
Oh, BTW, note that I wasn't responding to your post, but to somebody else. So you apparently have a lot of trouble juding things in context yourself.
The "nuber 1 ranked country is also the most free" is by definition -- it was a ECONOMIC FREEDOM RANKING LIST. On a list that ranks countries by banana production the the #1 producer of bananas ranks #1.
/.
If you want the context, you can go to the Heritage Foundation website yourself. That's why I named my source -- so I wouldn't have to post twenty paragraphs worth of criteria, standards, and methodology to
As the UNDHR protects my right to property, the freedom of opinion clause may not be used to call for the abolition of my property rights. Therefore communists can be imprisoned for advocating their beliefs without violating the UNDHR.
The UNDHR is crap. The U.S. should lead the world and repudiate this arbitrary and self-contradictory pile of shit.
The famous example is batteries. For years, competing battery companies tried to improve the cardboard-sided battery. And one day, the wife of an engineer suggested that he use a can.
The competitors filed suit to have the patent invalidated as "obvious". The judge merely asked how long the competitor had been trying to develop an improved battery and how much they had spent; after being told years and millions, he dismissed the case.
Actually, the early U.S. economy was dependent on British capital, with much of the profits going back to British investors. And the Filipinos have not been an example of laissez-faire capitalism. Its rank on the Heritage Foundation world-wide Index of Economic Freedom is 81 with an overall score of 3.05 and a trade freedom score of 3.0. Let's compare that to other in-region countries: Hong Kong, rank 1, overall 1.30, trade 1.0 Singapore, rank 2, overall 1.55, trade 1.0 Japan, rank 14, overall 2.05, trade 2.0 Taiwan, rank 20, overall 2.10, trade 2.0 Thailand, rank 21, overall 2.20, trade 2.0 South Korea, rank 27, overall 2.25, trade 3.0 The Phillipines are a lousy example of a "laissez-faire" economy, either overall or in the area of trade, ranking lower than such radically free-market countries as democratic-socialist dominated Sweeden (rank 29, overall 2.25, trade 2.0).