On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
No, not necessarily. Given that there are Tier 1 ISPs, Tier 2, etc.,
so you can certainly have some small-ish ISP colluding with criminal
activity, in effect, by ignoring it or claiming ignorance.
However, it's kind of hard to plead ignorance when, say, people
continually alert them to the issues and they persist.
I don't know of any ISP that regularly (i.e. more than once) refuses to
obey lawful orders of authorities in the relevant jurisdiction to take
action. There are disputes about what is the correct jurisdiction, and
what is a lawful order.
I predict in a month or so, someone else will be ranting about ISPs
censoring their "First Amendment" right to do something.
There are lots of laws around the world, lots of courts, and lots of law
enforcement agencies. Somewhere in the world, there seems to be a law
against almost anything. People make lots of complaints about all sorts
of stuff that may not be illegal. The FCC receives hundreds of thousands
of complaints about television and radio programs frome people who have
never seen or heard them. The number of complaints isn't proof.
On one hand, there are the pundits that claim ISPs will never be able to
stop whatever favored activity is prohibited by law in a jurisdiction:
VOIP bypass, copyright infringement, encourging public disorder, etc. How
long was The Pirate Bay shutdown after authorities seized their equipment,
but didn't arrest the people?
On the other hand, there are the pundits that claim ISPs are ignoring
whatever disfavored activity: indecency, defamation, blasphemy, fraud,
etc. Should ISPs be responsible for the network stuff (traceability,
disruption of service, etc) and let the appropriate authorities enforce
the laws of each jurisdiction?
Is the complaint about ISPs, or about some the lack of law enforcement
resources in some jurisdictions?
