[86916] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Cryptome cut off by NTT/Verio
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dan@geer.org)
Sun Apr 29 15:45:12 2007
From: dan@geer.org
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:47:44 EDT."
<87slajyyfz.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:48:00 -0400
[Moderator's note: I'm forwarding this one message, but I will
not be forwarding any further messages on what regulations ISPs
should or should not be subject to -- that is beyond the scope of the
mailing list. --Perry]
Perry, et al.,
"If I ran the zoo", then I would give the
big ISPs this choice:
(1) You accept common carrier designation,
which means you are not responsible for
your content but you have to charge the
same for transporting X bits independent
of what those bits are.
(2) You can charge whatever you want to
charge, e.g., get into the premium movie
distribution business, but you are not
a common carrier and you are responsible
for the content you carry.
Note that what they want is the good
parts of both (we can charge what we
like and it is never our fault).
--dan
"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
-+------------------------
| Slightly off topic, but not deeply. Many of you are familiar with
| John Young's "Cryptome" web site. Apparently NTT/Verio has suddenly
| (after many years) decided that Cryptome violates the ISP's AUP,
| though they haven't made it particularly clear why.
|
| The following link will work for at least a few days I imagine:
|
| http://cryptome.org/cryptome-shut.htm
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
