[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
- Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
- From: tbeecher at localnet.com (Tom Beecher)
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:31:52 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
47 U.S.C. 230 doesn't do much for child porn, no. However, PROTECT does.
PROTECT spells out reporting, but also contains safe harbor provisions such that an ISP who didn't know that child porn was being transmitted across their network cannot be prosecuted for not knowing, only for not taking the required reporting/preservation/destruction actions as required by law.
And in practice, the process is:
On 11/29/2012 5:06 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:26:57 -0500
>> From: Tom Beecher <tbeecher at localnet.com>
>> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
>> you can.
>> Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230 is the US law that has been
>> interpreted to provide immunity to ISP for the actions of their users.
> It is worth noting that 47 U.S.C. 230 provides _limited_ protections, only.
> Broad protection, but limited. It says that a provider shall not 'be
> treated as author' for material provided by someone else.
> This of little-to-no help with regard to kiddie porn, since distribution,
> and even 'mere' possession, are crimes -- independant of authorship.