Some of this started a little over a month ago in some hearings.
http://news.com.com/Senators+demand+more+regulations+on+Net+pharmacies/2100-1028-6184455.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e703
There was a Harvard Law Professor that made some unbelievable remarks there:
Philip Heymann, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in
drug-related legal issues, suggested formulating a group that would monitor
for objectionable sites, alert ISPs to their existence, and require ISPs to
offer their subscribers the option of having such sites rendered
inaccessible from their accounts. (He did not mention that Web-blocking
software, which permits end users to block access to designated Web sites,
has existed for more than a decade.)
"It is no burden to (the ISPs). They know how to do it; they can do it in a
minute," Heymann told the politicians. He also suggested that search engines
like Google and Yahoo be required to place banners at the top of their
search results pages warning users that it's illegal to buy certain drugs
without prescriptions.
Heymann also suggested that ISPs could be forced to filter all Web traffic
for specific ads, something that would be technically problematic given the
current state of Internet filtering technology. "We believe that Internet
service providers should make available to their customers the opportunity
to block ads for illegal sales of controlled substances from their Internet
service," he wrote in his statement.
If you click on his name, it will give info about this prof and his e-mail
address. I know I sent an e-mail to him pointing out his errors.
Tim Kerns
CV-Access
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
If anyone has already started looking into this more, like where the bill
is and what the time line is, please post to the list (I'll do the same).
This is definitely something that needs to be nipped in the bud.
This is not the job of and ISP in any form. What happens if the ISP
blocks traffic to a legitimate site, are we now liable for lost revenue
and defamation by implying that a site is not legit?
I will have to take exception to his statement that the internet needs
regulation.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Jack Unger wrote:
I agree 100% with the author of this article.
Requiring ISPs to block sites that they "suspect" of advertising or
selling illegal pharmaceuticals is the wrong way to go about dealing with
marketing abuse.
Once ISPs are required to block sites based either on "suspicion" or on
government order, we will have lost more of our ever-shrinking freedom
than we will ever gain in "security".
I'm going to get more information about this bill and then write Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to make
them aware of my concern and ask them to drop the ISP-requirement
provisions.
jack
Matt wrote:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regulations
or
http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs
Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about
online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous.
What will be next.
It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the
use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs
directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be
held liable as well.
Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
