Well, I don't want any net nannies sensoring the news I get, any ideas
the nanny does not like I will never see (?)
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 15:37:48 -0400,
b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote (to
> both customers and the public), and
On August 7, 2019 at 18:43 cov...@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) wrote:
> Well, I don't want any net nannies sensoring the news I get, any ideas
> the nanny does not like I will never see (?)
Then you wouldn't buy it. Netnanny exists now, do you use it? No?
Would you use it? No. Then nothing
Netnanny is mostly sold for parents to put on their children's access.
You're not thinking this through.
Promote third-party curation, those who never want to see content they
find disturbing can PURCHASE* that service rather than bugging their
congressperson to demand that ISPs provide this
On Wednesday, 7 August, 2019 13:38, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote
>(to >both customers and the public), and support various curation
>services like netnanny.
IANAP (I Am Not A Psychiatrist) however, persons who, when reading or
I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote (to
both customers and the public), and support various curation services
like netnanny.
Promoting the idea that third-party curation is a service one can
obtain into the public discussion can only be good.
--
-Barry
On 8/7/2019 10:50 AM, Tony Patti wrote:
FYI, /Bloomberg BusinessWeek/ published _TODAY_ a 3,200-word article
by Felix Gillette entitled*
"Section 230 Was Supposed to Make the Internet a Better Place. It Failed"*
st 6, 2019 11:36 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet
John,
Please reread my comments. I did not say “carriers” and specifically excluded
the FCC’s definition. I said “Common Carriers”, as defined by Common Law. The
DMCA as
> ISPs and CDNs don't have to provide service to anyone.
You mean like bakers don’t have to sell cakes to anyone? :)
-mel
> On Aug 6, 2019, at 9:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> ISPs and CDNs don't have to provide service to
> anyone.
In article <56cbb25e-9a53-4e5e-b2cb-3e769112f...@truenet.com> you write:
>John,
>
>Seriously, just quote so people don’t have to look it up. Honestly, though
>others are probably right in that case law usually will over-ride written law
>due
>to our legal structure.
Well, kind of, but in this
John,
Seriously, just quote so people don’t have to look it up. Honestly, though
others are probably right in that case law usually will over-ride written law
due to our legal structure.
> On Aug 6, 2019, at 10:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
John,
Please reread my comments. I did not say “carriers” and specifically excluded
the FCC’s definition. I said “Common Carriers”, as defined by Common Law. The
DMCA asserts that they must operate as CCs under this definition: in order to
get protection under Safe Harbor they must function as
In article <6956e76b-e6b7-409f-a636-c7607bfd8...@beckman.org> you write:
>Mehmet,
>
>I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common
>carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their
>customers.
ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Rob McEwen wrote:
I'm so tired of this thread - but the bottom line is that censorship and even
the definition of "hate" and "racism" (especially when used in the
vernacular!) are extremely subjective and can lead to situations where
reasonable people disagree. And if/when
And now this has happened, in a nutshell France's lower house says
remove content which is "obviously hateful" (words used in the
article) in 24 hours or face up to a 1.25M euro fine.
Granted perhaps it won't become law.
But legislators are clearly becoming consumed with this whole internet
Anne,
I can see the 4th amendment violation here, but are there operational issues
with ISPs? For example, CALEA requires telecommunications carriers (or VoIP
providers) to provide voice data streams to law enforcement agencies in real
time. NSLs require production of customer information in
Hi Anne,
I would argue that if you're not in the EU and have no presence there, you are
safe from GDPR. No matter how much they EUSSR wants it, they cannot enforce
their laws in other jurisdictions. What would happen if Russia would try to
enforce their laws in the U.S.? Same thing.
GDPR is
I'm so tired of this thread - but the bottom line is that censorship and
even the definition of "hate" and "racism" (especially when used in the
vernacular!) are extremely subjective and can lead to situations where
reasonable people disagree. And if/when such policies are implemented to
try
On August 5, 2019 at 19:02 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu (Valdis Klētnieks) wrote:
>
> Hint: The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because many
> ISPs
> aren't mere conduits. And this thread got started regarding a CDN, which is
> very much
> all about storing data on
Anne,
Is the CLOUD Act germane to North American network operations (the mission of
NANOG)? My understanding is that this ACT was to help solve problems the FBI
had with obtaining remote data through overseas service providers, through SCA
warrants.
SCA already compels U.S.- and Canada-based
Hey guys, how about we talk about the CLOUD act now?
Anne
---
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Valdis,
You agree that the CDN content is temporary, no? That is the definition of
processes used by an ISP providing pure transport services.
-mel via cell
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:15:36 -, Mel Beckman said:
>
>> Not really. The
On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:15:36 -, Mel Beckman said:
> Not really. The customer provides the content on its own servers. The CDN
> simply redistributes the content via temporary caching. Itâs not a web
> hosting
> provider. The CDN _customer_ hosts the content.
That's an... interesting..
Eric,
Not really. The customer provides the content on its own servers. The CDN
simply redistributes the content via temporary caching. It’s not a web hosting
provider. The CDN _customer_ hosts the content.
-mel beckman
On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:09 PM, Eric Kuhnke
mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>>
A CDN is a hosting company. It is the logical continuation and evolution of
what an httpd hosting/server colo company was twenty years ago, but with
more geographical scale and a great deal more automation tools.
I have never in my life seen a medium to large-sized hosting company that
didn't
On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 02:27:30 -, Mel Beckman said:
> A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from
> arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customerâs content. The caching
> done by
> a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA.
Just
Valdis,
A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from
arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customer’s content. The caching done by
a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA.
The alternative is that you believe CDNs are not protected by
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:40:43 -, Mel Beckman said:
> The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase âon your serversâ.
> ISPs
> acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
> servers.
Note that ISPs whose business is 100% "acting as conduits" are in the
>Hey, I got my Network+ too. dafuq is a "BGP"?
That's what the British get after too much Beer-o-clock. A Bloody-Good-Puking
...
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On 8/5/19 4:57 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> TBH some of this is like watching someone try to set up a router using
> only the marketing brochures.
Hey, I got my Network+ too. dafuq is a "BGP"?
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
One tiny bit of sermonizing not aimed at anyone in particular:
Interested amateurs tend to study the wording of laws.
Lawyers tend to study case law, actual cases and their outcomes.
In part that's because, besides the hazards of interpretation, laws
often conflict, supercede each other,
Valdis,
The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”. ISPs
acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
servers. Moreover, the DMCA specifically spells out that safe harbor protection
“covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing
Cloudflare is not an ISP. They are a CDN. You cannot ask them for a DSL or
Cable connection, or even DIA.
Not that it matters: ISPs are not “Common Carriers” in statute or Common Law.
The DMCA provides some protections which are similar to Common Carrier status,
but that does not mean they
Keith,
You’re confusing ISPs that merely provide transport services, such as AT and
Cloudfare, with information services like FaceBook and Twitter. The Common
Carrier status for legal protection of ISPs stems from the 1998 DMCA, which
long preceded the 2015 Network Neutrality act. It provides
On 8/5/19 10:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:
The best cure for speech is more speech. The President notwithstanding,
hateful behavior has a hard time surviving the light of day. You
shouldn't be the censor but you can shine the light.
That doesn't seem to work on Facebook, where people spew the
On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:19:06 -, Mel Beckman said:
> I notice you didnât provide any actual data to support your position. What,
> for example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable
> for?
You get caught with nuclear weapons data, terrorism-related info, or kiddie
Mel, this is to ack your note. "Because I'm a lawyer" isn't an argument at all,
*nor have I made it* - however, that I'm extremely busy, and under no
obligation to provide any of this information here, is. I'm not here for
academic debate. You are also free to bring a lawsuit based on ISP as
On Monday, 5 August, 2019 10:25, Bryan Fields wrote:
>I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their
>customer. This was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least
>30 days under any hosting contract. This scares the shit
>out of me as a customer; could cloudflare decide to give
The best cure for speech is more speech.
+1E07
On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:05 AM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:41 PM Mehmet Akcin
mailto:meh...@akcin.net>> wrote:
Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
straight to the
Anne of Many Titles,
I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What, for
example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable for?
Present an argument to make your case. “No, because I’m a lawyer and you’re
not” is not an argument :)
As
LOL! You mean instead of “Keith gets to decide what’s on topic”?
I didn’t “decide” anything, BTW. I simply pointed out that Common Carrier
operations is within the NANOG mandate to discuss operational issues.
-mel
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> On 8/5/19 11:15 AM,
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:46 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
> My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
> your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
> already have it (probably most do.)
>
> And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for
My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
already have it (probably most do.)
And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for this) will seek
expenses including but not limited to legal,
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:41 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
On 8/5/19 9:24 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 8/4/19 11:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:24:55PM -0400, Bryan Fields wrote:
> contract. This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
> decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?
So much for the "free-speech absolutist".
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom
> regulatory purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs
> protection from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as
On 8/5/2019 10:24 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their customer. This
was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least 30 days under any hosting
contract. This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
decide to give me no notice and
On 8/5/19 11:15 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
Mel gets to decide what's on topic and off topic for the nanog list?
:D
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common
> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their
> customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal,
> if offensive, content than the phone company can,
On 8/4/19 11:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the n-word makes them
cool, and then other bland
Patrick,
You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom regulatory
purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs protection
from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they operate as
pure common carriers:
“Section 512(a) provides a
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:41 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
>
What is a "hate site" and who gets to decide what constitutes a "hate
site"? These are the most dangerous questions of our time, because once we
begin sliding down the
On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman wrote:
>“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly
>scheduled programming.”
>Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
I think that is closing the barn door
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, at 11:30, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
American ISPs are not common carriers. When net neutrality was revoked on
December 14, 2017, so was ISP's common carrier status /
Mel:
My understanding is ISPs are not Common Carriers. Didn’t we just have a big
debate about this w/r/t Network Neutrality? I Am Not A Lawyer (hell, I am not
even an ISP :), but if any legal experts want to chime in, please feel free to
educate us.
Put another way, ISPs are not phone
* m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Mon 05 Aug 2019, 17:21 CEST]:
Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for
example, carry the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they
going to cut them off too?
Finally, a centrist to point out the true culprits of all this violence
"I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
reached, and used to end innocent lives?"
As network operators? We shouldn't do anything. The onus falls on the
hosting companies. I do not want to go down
“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled
programming.”
Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common carrier?
Seems pretty operational to me.
-mel
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> Now, enough of this off-topic
Peace,
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:42 AM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about
> hate sites like 8Chan?
About nothing, because recent IETF developments like QUIC, ESNI, or
MASQUE would completely prohibit you from figuring out what sites you,
as an ISP, are giving
Mehmet,
I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common
carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their
customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal,
if offensive, content than the phone company can, without
Well, once they let NetOps fire sales staff we can get some traction going.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:42 PM Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of
On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 21:41, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
>moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
>there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and
>other things which force us to
> On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached,
> and used to end innocent lives?
I''d suggest reducing their reputation rankings, as
> could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be
> found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?
Nope. If they follow the word of the providers and services they use, there is
no reason to terminate the service. CloudFlare terminating 8chan's service was
a one
64 matches
Mail list logo
