Adult content blocks on mobile ISPs
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Mar 4 23:11:52 GMT 2011
<AANLkTiktG3K7hTJgxYP_yCSQ_uRDPfF9tABMAbFkpsZk at mail.gmail.com>, Francis
Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> writes
>In particular the mere conduit immunity is directed at liability for
>information and the rationale is that the mere conduit has no real
>control over the information in question (it didn't create it or
>select it) and therefore should not be liable for it.
I think the crux is that they are not liable when failing-to-'select' it
[ie failing to block it, or being as the name suggests a mere conduit].
>After all, ISP's do by their very nature "select" destinations in the
>sense that they take automatic routing decisions (or may have to).
If there's load balancing going on they'll be playing a part in
'selecting' where a particular bit of content is sourced from. Not that
such a decision should affect what the content *is*.
But this is way beyond the sort of complication the authors were
expecting to be legislating for [albeit that's for a court to decide,
not the authors].
More information about the ukcrypto