Actually from an end-user perspective actionable notice of anything will originate with the customers more often than not.
If the police come to you as an ISP and they inform you of something illegal happening inside your ISP you have blown it. ISP's need to be able to at least tell themselves that they know what is happening. By the way - the big one these days is the claim from the Tier-2/3 player that they are really subject to the same rules that the Tier-1 players are and that simply isn't true - nor should it be. Todd -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:29 PM To: Dan Hollis; Jack Bates Cc: Kuhtz, Christian; todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden; North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Thus spake "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote: > > On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be > > negligent not to look into it. > > How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are > negligent and should be held liable... Any actionable notice about illegal activities will come via conventional channels from law enforcement officials -- not via email from customers or other operators. Since a common carrier can't filter on content -- only fraudulent and malicious activity against the carrier itself -- there's not much (legal) purpose in maintaining an abuse@ alias. Abuse reporting exists in its current form today because (a) there's no laws against most "abuse", and (b) the cops refuse to act unless you claim at least $250k in damages per event. As the lawyers sink their teeth into the net, you're going to find less and less "good will" out there simply because it opens you to liabilty in court. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
