Re: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

["David Wall" <d.wall at computer.org>]

> At any rate, the 1978 ECPA seems to give fairly broad options to ISPs
> for administrative purposes.
>
> Cubby v Compuserve also seems to side strongly on the side of ISPs vis
> a vis protecting them from narrow claims of being "publishers".

True, but the question will be raised whether this is simply administrative,
or they are blocking messages based on content the ISP deems to be
objectionable simply needs the right test case before some trial lawyer will
give it a run.  Once you start to say a user can see this, but not that, you
are entering the land of being a publisher.  A carrier doesn't check the
contents, so they are not liable for the content.  If they do check that
content, then they open themselves up.  In the end, though, I don't think
SPF would violate this because the rules are not related to the content -- 
spam filtering does.  Even virus filtering can be a pain when people are
trying to transmit a virus, such as to a researcher or to law enforcement.

Restraint of trade is a real concern if the sender and recipient want to do
business using email, but an ISP is blocking their emails.

In many ways, it's much better for the ISPs to simply let the traffic go
through and have user-level spam filtering do the magic.

> But if you have any case law to the contrary I'm sure it would be
> interesting and relevant since it could reflect on the legality of the
> group's mission.

No.  Fortunately, I'm no lawyer.  But I am a businessman, and the odd part
is, once you START to protect people, you become LIABLE to protect them.  If
you FAIL to protect them, you open yourself to lawsuits and criminal
prosecution.

David


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg