bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
Re: Whack a mole.
said by S_engineer  :Problem is they were shut down prematurely. Not all of McColos clients were spammers. They had legitimate sites being hosted. So this opens up liabilities on that front. Not to mention McColo hasn't been formally charged with anything. "Also unclear is the extent to which McColo could be held legally responsible for the activities of the clients for whom it provides hosting services. There is no evidence that McColo has been charged with any crime, and these activities may not violate the law." this is from krebs himself...» www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···oduletmvBy talking these actions, McColo may not only be entitled to damages, but ironically enough so may their clients. All Krebs had to do was contact the proper authorities. But he decided that the rag post needed a sales spike. This route almost guarantees McColo part deux 1 Time for a law change. If it's on your servers and you know it's there, and you know it's illegal, you're complicit. The ISPs that pulled the plug were confronted with enough evidence that they really had no other choice, and the spam data certainly backs up their position. Im sure their TOS with McCulo (pun intended) included a prohibition against any illegal activity.
If you lie down with pigs, you get up smelling like shit. Next step should be the FBI seizing McCulos hardware as evidence and let a judge sort it out.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by bent :Time for a law change. The change I'd like to see is in 39 USC 3008. A statute which gives individuals *unlimited* protection against mass mailers. If you read the 1970 Supreme Court decision concerning this law, it's obvious it should be extended to apply to email.
See »Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??
Mark |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to bent
Everyones talking about a law change....but if your talking about a change in law then your admitting McColo didn't break any current law. I'm no advocate of McColo, but I find it funny that a newspaper can legitimately start a lynch mob, and without conviction have a company shut down. This is a horrible precedent. Guilty or not, bypassing the proper methods may give McColo an out, and may even enable them and their clients to seek damages against Global Crossing and hurricane.
This is going to be like a crime drama where the defendant gets released on a technicality. In this case, it will be the premature actions of Global and Hurricane, whom should also be complicit if they knew what was going on!
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | said by S_engineer :Everyones talking about a law change....but if your talking about a change in law then your admitting McColo didn't break any current law. The WP says that unless it's k porn or copyright infringment, that's the case. However, the contract that McCulo had with their providers is a whole other ball of ear wax. The WP goes on to state that the commercial front-ends of several k porn rings were hosted by McCulo.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :and may even enable them and their clients to seek damages against Global Crossing and hurricane. I'm sure those two providers know their legal standing. You don't know the terms of service which McColo agreed to. You make it sound like McColo had an absolute right to those two networks.
Mark |
|
Sean
join:2004-01-23
Ottawa
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to bent
said by bent :said by S_engineer :Problem is they were shut down prematurely. Not all of McColos clients were spammers. They had legitimate sites being hosted. So this opens up liabilities on that front. Not to mention McColo hasn't been formally charged with anything. "Also unclear is the extent to which McColo could be held legally responsible for the activities of the clients for whom it provides hosting services. There is no evidence that McColo has been charged with any crime, and these activities may not violate the law." this is from krebs himself...» www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···oduletmvBy talking these actions, McColo may not only be entitled to damages, but ironically enough so may their clients. All Krebs had to do was contact the proper authorities. But he decided that the rag post needed a sales spike. This route almost guarantees McColo part deux 1 Time for a law change. If it's on your servers and you know it's there, and you know it's illegal, you're complicit. The ISPs that pulled the plug were confronted with enough evidence that they really had no other choice, and the spam data certainly backs up their position. Im sure their TOS with McCulo (pun intended) included a prohibition against any illegal activity. If you lie down with pigs, you get up smelling like shit. Next step should be the FBI seizing McCulos hardware as evidence and let a judge sort it out. Don't be a fascist. Only fascists make reactionary laws.
How do you propose you convince the judge and jury MyColo knew about what was going on? There aren't any current laws about HAVING to know what your clients are doing, because that in itself is absurd (imagine having to keep tabs on ALL of your clients, and then your client's clients, etc since they are on your server).
So,
a) you cannot realistically expect an operation to keep tabs on all of it's terabytes of data
b) you will not be able to prove that said company had any sort of idea of what was going on
Having said this, imagine the ramifications on the people of the state. Imagine a world where a publisher (web hosting company) can't publish (host) ideas and thoughts (websites) for fear of the government deeming it illegal. It would be the beginning of the end to all free speech.
Fascist, much?
What you are suggesting should not ever be considered, and it should not ever, ever become law. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Sean :How do you propose you convince the judge and jury MyColo knew about what was going on? There aren't any current laws about HAVING to know what your clients are doing, because that in itself is absurd (imagine having to keep tabs on ALL of your clients, and then your client's clients, etc since they are on your server). Many laws are simply "what a reasonable person" should have been expected to know, or do. For example, laws concerning self defense don't spell out the exact action or moment that justifies the use of lethal force. They are worded "if you had reasonable fear for your life, the life of another, or grievous bodily injury."
"Reasonable" is what an average person considers to be reasonable. That's decided by a jury of your peers.
I see nothing wrong with a reasonableness test. It's not about finding the exact defining moment that an ISP would be complicit. It's about finding those cases (like this one) where an ISP's customer was hosting half the spammers on the internet. I don't think a jury would have trouble with the question of whether an ISP should have "reasonably" known.
Mark |
|
