On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400 Andrew D Kirch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > > >> sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be > >> anonymous in hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from > >> self-important people who wear formal clothes. > >> > >> folk who learn this the hard way may find a pointer passed to me > >> by smb helpful, <http://www.chrisbrunner.com/?p=119>. > >> > > > > If bittorrent of copyrighted material is the most illegal thing you > > helped facilitate while running tor, and all you got was an > > assertive e-mail because of it, you should consider yourself > > extremely lucky. > > > > Anonymity against privacy invasion and for political causes sure > > sounds like a great concept, but in reality it presents too > > tempting a target for abuse. If you choose to open up your internet > > connection to anyone who wants to use it, you should be prepared to > > be held accountable for what those anonymous people do with it. I'm > > sure you don't just sell transit to any spammer who comes along > > without researching them a little first, why should this be any > > different. > You might also consider asserting your right to common carrier > immunity under 47USC230. > OK -- I looked at that part of the US Code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). Apart from the fact that the phrase "common carrier" does not occur in that section, subparagraph (f)(2) says: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. Perhaps you're referring to the law exempting ISPs from liability for user-created content? (I don't have the citation handy.) If so, remember that that law requires response to take-down notices. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
