[oclug] OT: rogers EUA

[Trevor Curtis]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:47:56PM -0500, Brad Barnett offered:
> Don't be one of those people that thinks that all laws are bad, simply
> because some idiots passed a few bad laws.  Furthermore, almost everything
> I am talking about has nothing to do with the laws that have been passed
> in the US in the last few years.
> 
> This is not the US.

It is naive to think that we are totally isolated from what happens in
the 'States. History shows that what happens there is quite often
relavent here.

> Sure, keep it in reason.  That's what I'm suggesting.  Keep it in reason.

Not really. I believe there is a _massive_ difference between being a
racist, and being a responsible ISP. The ISP has no right to deny anyone
anything on the basis of race, religion... etc. Stopping some jerk from
running a server full of kiddy porn is, and *should* be the ISP's right.


> > > For! Crying! Out! Loud!  Heh.  THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.  The RCMP can
> > > _not_ tell you to stop doing this or that _without a court_.  They
> > > arrest you, they take you in, the _JUDGE_ decides if you are
> > > _actually_ running a kiddie porn site.  If the judge thinks that there
> > > is reasonable cause, he will order a temporary injunction to shut down
> > > the site until the case is heard. 
> > 
> > Putting the burden on the system is silly considering it's been made
> > clear that it has not caught up to the recent state of technologie. I
> > believe the local police officers who came in and gave a talk said as
> > much.
> 
> Erm, that's the whole point.  Legislation, remember?  What we're talking
> about?  Legislation to cover the current state of affairs?

Obviously. But if the system has very little understanding of the issues
regarding high tech, computers, etc... how will legislation be
effective?

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE ISP DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN POST ON THE
> > > WEB SERVER.  Under no circumstances should the RCMP tell you to shut
> > > down a user's site!  This is completely against freedom of speech! 
> > > THESE ARE MATTERS FOR A COURT TO DECIDE!
> > 
> > No one is _really_ stopping you. If the first ISP says no, go to a
> > second. I did just that, and am quite happy. (well the first ISP
> > wouldn't let me run a server... that was the problem. :)   )
> > 
> 
> Wow.  It's like you're not even reading, but just replying for the heck of
> it.  

Now you are just getting offensive, and that doesn't help proove your
point at all. You said "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE ISP DECIDE
WHAT YOU CAN POST ON THE WEB SERVER". Well, webserver no, what transmits
through their "pipes", yes. It is a *total* waste of resources if,
again, some jerks have kiddy porn on their servers and for every
instance of said jerks,  you have to go to court to get the material
removed. 

> 
> > > This is a rights issue.
> > 
> > Yes, but what about the rights of the businesses?
> > 
> 
> They come second.

I don't think so. If I ran an ISP, and users starting posting resonably
objectionable material[1] on their webservers, I would take issue. Not
just for any moral implications, but as a business person, I would want
to distance my self from any objectionable material[1]. In other words
my businesses image would be drastically if this
sort of thing continued until I could get a court order to get it to
stop. And in the mean time the material is freely distributed? I'm sorry, 
that doesn't make alot of sense.

later,
TC

[1] - By "objectionalbe material", I mean things like kiddy porn,
hate propaganda, threats against people's lives... etc.