Supreme Court Rules ISPs Not Liable for E-mail Content

dan of the north was the first to write in with the Supreme Court Ruling outcome that ruled that ISPs (in this case, Prodigy), are not liable for the content of e-mail messages sent through them. The details of the circumstance are availible in the above link. Yes, this was a big "duh", but it's good to see this stand.

Re:This is actually a BAD thing...

>After investigating, Prodigy canceled the accounts, but was unable to identify the impostor.

Maybe I'm on drugs here, but this sounds like a pretty serious problem to me, when an ISP cannot figure out who is using their own service! Based on the facts as I know them, I think Prodigy should have been held liable for this, since they obviously didn't have some way to verify the identities of their users.

Why? Why on earth should they be able to verify the identities of their users? Should hotmail be able to verify the identity of every single hotmail-account owner?

At the best, prodigy can track down the phone number of the person who dialed in - if they are a dialup service. What does that give them? NADA. I'm not sure how prodigy services works, but if it works the same way as some norwegian ISP's, then someone could've signed up by going to certain webpages, and "signed up" for a free account. Furthermore, you can sign up when bouncing via a proxy .. say .. a netbus infected person.

It takes no skill to bounce via some totally anonymous bouncers (netbus infected people, people with non-logging wingates running, and so forth).

That prodigy couldn't identify them .. well, its no surprise to me.


--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - [e-mail] - arcade@efnet

Remember Skokie...

Anyone remember the case about how the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois? The Supreme Court didn't hear that case, either. They allowed the lower court decision to stand, effectively meaning that it only had a binding precedent in the federal circuit where the lower court case had been decided. The real effect was nationwide, however, as cities and states crafted their new laws to conform to this standard, which the supreme court had not ruled on one way or the other. The concept that "silence gives consent" is in full force in the mind of the people and politicians.

A really good ruling

The court (in this case the NY Court of Appeals, affirmed by the Supreme Court since they refused to hear the case) essentially recognized an ISP as a common carrier. This is nothing but good news for all of us.


...phil

It's a good thing we have Echelon...

Seeing as how the Supreme court thinks:

"The public would not be well served by compelling an (internet service provider) to examine and screen millions of e-mail communications..."

Glad somebody is taking care of that. Thanks, NSA!

Supreme Court *did not* rule...

The Supreme Court did not rule on this case, they rejected it without comment. There is a significant difference...they have not offered their opinion of the case at all. They get far too many cases each year to consider and rule on all of them.

What about RESPONSIBILITY?

When are we going to start standing up and taking responsibility for the actions of others? I mean, really, think about how much dangerous and obscene information must be flowing through email every day.. What excuse do the ISP's have? Its not like they lack the technology to examine every message and track every net user.. Lets keep the net safe!

On a related topic, I really must insist that the US postal service start opening every letter and examining the contents for objectional material.

Come on people! we're racing head-long into a dangerous time where everyone might have to start taking personal responsibility for their own actions.. Isn't that what government is for?
-- 'Won't somebody please think of the lawyers.."

Re:i don't see why this is good.

Excellent points, especially in regard to the case of identity theft, which is in large part where this case originated. (your example 1).

My reading of the article is that basically the U.S. Supreme Court has held only that the ISP is not liable for the transmission of the offending information, which means that they have what is called "common carrier" status. I'm not sure whether the original lawsuit also contained a request for liability based on the network security issue(s). I'm reminded of the fiasco at Network Solutions not too long ago where hackers forged the email header information for a large number of websites and basically took control of those sites for a while. If I owned the registration on one of those sites, and libel or slandering material was published on those domains, I would very certainly have suffered damages to my reputation, etc. And I would hope that a court would find that if NSI didn't adequately secure my data (or offer higher security for my data to prevent the domain name piracy, which they do), that they are in part responsible for the damage.

Spam mail...I don't know if the courts need to necessarily get involved, because there are other technological ways of dealing with the problem, AKA the RBOC list. If the email services provided by yahoo, etc. don't shut off the flow of spam mail, they can get blocked in a hurry, right? Your question asked Shouldn't these ISP's and large companies be responsible for the information being sent through their network?No -- they can't be under the court opinion. But they can, have, and will continue to be made responsible by the 'Net community for the fact that spam is flowing through their networks. Which is why nearly all ISP's have a policy of cutting off the account(s) of anyone sending spam through their connections.

Final case: "It's just like having a gun... if your gun is taken and used in a homicide, you should be responsible for not taking the necessary precautions and preventing it from being used in a crime."

Depends. If I have the gun in my hand and I let you take it from me, shoot somebody, etc. I'm an accessory to the crime. Likewise, if I allow or assist someone who should not have access to firearms to gain that access, I can again be charged with violating the law. But if you burglarize my house, breaking into a gun cabinet, stealing the weapon, (and I report it to the police, etc.), if you murder someone, should I still be held liable because I didn't somehow prevent your original burglary crime, or store the guns in a 2000 lb. safe, etc.?

This is actually a BAD thing...

First, everyone should go read this article on Wired [wired.com] about the incident. Done that? Good.

Now, note the part that says:

After investigating, Prodigy canceled the accounts, but was unable to identify the impostor.

Maybe I'm on drugs here, but this sounds like a pretty serious problem to me, when an ISP cannot figure out who is using their own service! Based on the facts as I know them, I think Prodigy should have been held liable for this, since they obviously didn't have some way to verify the identities of their users.

Couldn't they have at least provided the credit card number that was used to open the account to investigators or something? Geez...

Re:Supreme Court *did not* rule...

True, but their rejection did allow the New York decision to stand. And that's a precedent. (At least for the State of New York). You can bet your bottoms that this is going to be used by ISP's to defend themselves.

The same thing happens in the executive branch of government. If congress is in session, and the president doesn't sign a bill after a certain period of time, it becomes law. The President didn't approve the law, but the law is. Same as the pocket veto when congress isn't in session. If the president doesn't sign a bill or veto it, it becomes vetoed without action.