Fwd: philosophical question about gmail

[Bruce Dawson]

On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 09:17, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 09:18:38PM -0400, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 18:22, Bill Sconce wrote:
> > > If that ISP should elect to scan what you write and sell the
> > > resulting information, they're essentially free to do so.
> > Except that ISPs are governed by the "Common Carrier" laws - the same
> > laws that protect them from liable lawsuits.  There is *some* privacy
> > guarantee there, but not much. And most of what is there has been
> > significantly diluted by the "anti-terrorism acts" (at least with
> > regards to the government).
> 
> ISP's are Common Carrier's? 
> Interesting.
> 
> During discussions about ISPs refusing to accept SMTP connections from
> Dynamic IP addresses it was argued that ISPs are not Common Carriers and
> therefore can practice that particular form of censure to protect their
> customer's email streams, whereas a Common Carrier. like a telephone
> company is required to put all connections through, even ones
> originating 
> from known 900-number switching fraud sources.

Perhaps my wording was too strong. I think I should have said that
attempts have been made to hold ISPs accountable to common carrier laws.
Some have succeeded, some have not. Also, keep in mind that the "common
carrier" laws I referred to are not just the telecom laws, but also the
laws governing newspapers, radio, TV and other media. 

The only court decision I can remember at the moment involved a liable
suit, and the rationale for the decision was something to the effect of
"if the ISP moderates or is otherwise substantially aware of the
content, then it is at least partially accountable". (Quotes are mine.)

> Anybody know what ISP's real status is vis-a-vis being/not being
> a Common Carrier?

I believe that few landmark decisions have been made either
legislatively or through the court system. It appears the courts and
legislatures are taking the approach of letting things sort themselves
out.

But, if anyone has additional knowledge regarding this, I would
appreciate knowing. Probably off-list, since this is only peripherally
concerned with Linux.

--Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20040805/2a38c477/attachment.bin