From: roy@cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 18:31:51 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: SAN FRANCISCO EDITORIAL
In-Reply-To: <199501032006.AA04977@poboy.b17c.ingr.com>
Message-ID: <950103.173130.6M1.rusnews.w165w@cybrspc.mn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, perobich@ingr.com writes:

> Despite the odiousness of the source, might it be a Good Thing to get
> a law giving ISPs common-carrier status passed? 
> 
> When you're a common carrier, no one hassles you about the content you
> pass-- this would make it much easier for anon remailers to flourish.

I can't speak for ISPs in general, but when I still ran a public-access
system, the absolute last thing I wanted was to be thought of as a
common carrier.  While common carriers are held blameless for the
content of traffic they pass, they are also heavily regulated.  In
general, a common carrier may not refuse to provide services unless
special circumstances exist.  Want to bet Usenet abuse won't be one of
those circumstances?  Spammers would love such a state of affairs.  (and
remember who wrote that whine)

I'm for keeping regulation out of the Inet whenever and wherever
possible.
- -- 
       Roy M. Silvernail         [ ]  roy@cybrspc.mn.org
                    PGP public key available by mail
     echo /get /pub/pubkey.asc | mail file-request@cybrspc.mn.org
         These are, of course, my opinions (and my machines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1

iQCVAwUBLwnfPxvikii9febJAQF/QwQAuwj1FBH/Dcx0eG6gES6DB0cxYroSHkCe
L1QP67dyjtyQ+DGIV/+JLUJuAuszmNenzv2dqUL//Nmp5dpLqVSTm2n4D6cGrs3/
YlU0J1TixBnoPMkOKFs18czBQRw/ezSH9tnCKQ0PFf+f1Se/tvS3htOxohkKPpGe
7g85dDm4wow=
=slH/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----