Ben Smith <bens @
corp .
sprintmail .
com> writes:
> Someone wrote:
> >> Once you start censoring a part of the Internet, or any medium for that
> >> matter, of a particular piece of information you are responsible to make
> >> sure absolutely none of the information gets through.
> >> If you fail to do so you may be up for some pretty big law suit's.
>
> dckinder @
ovnet .
com wrote:
> >Frankly I question whether laws of this sort actually exist. They
> >should be changed if they do. Please advise.
There's no need to change them. You simply tell your users that they
are supposed to stay away from porn. You also tell them that you're
doing some automated monitoring that reports to you suspicious use
patterns. This monitoring is a passive thing, as opposed to active
filtering/censoring/publishing.
And sending out transaction logs to all users as Michael Dillon
(michael @
memra .
com) suggested should actually do a better job than
active filtering. Actually, esp. with non-Un*x boxes on your local
net it looks like a good idea to add logs of all outgoing mail as
well, so if someone forges mail the alleged sender may find out about
this.
> I believe the case was the State of New York vs. some large ISP (AOL?
> Prodigy? ).
I think it was Prodigy. Anyone who really wants to know should check
the RISKS archive. You'll find the URL in any posting in comp.risks.
Ben
--
Ben(edikt)? Stockebrand Runaway ping.de Admin---Never Ever Trust Old Friends
My name and email address are not to be added to any list used for advertising
purposes. Any sender of unsolicited advertisement e-mail to this address im-
plicitly agrees to pay a DM 500 fee to the recipient for proofreading services.
References:
|
|
