Wayne could of sed:
> -> By the way, I've already gotten calls from people who said they lost a lot
> -> of sleep over their PC being blocked. Knew they were doing the wrong
> -> thing. I think its working. (Of couse this is before we limited
> -> it to porno sites only).
> ->
>
> Actually, have you thought of the legal ramifications of all this?
>
> Since you have exerted control over access to sites, you have now assumed
> responsibility for the material that does get through.
>
> "It's not my fault judge, since this site wasn't blocked
> I thought it was officially approved"
>
> Wham! Multi-million dollar harrasment suit.
[snip]
This conjecture is often made in discussions of location and/or content
filtering, but I have not seen any case law that would remotely support it.
(Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, but I'll play one on the golf course if the
strokes are right). I assume folks are analogizing/extrapolating on
decisions that providers have given up their right to a "common carrier"
defense and have become "publishers" when they begin to control content in
any fashion, but those have to do with liability for publishing libel,
obscenity, etc. That's a very different situation from that of an employer
who deploys a technical solution that partially implements an access policy
of which employees have been properly informed. If there are statutes or
case precedents that would support an employer's harrassment liability
for completing the policy implementation via monitoring and applying
sanctions, I'd like to know about them.
--
W.C. Epperson "I have great faith in fools.
Senior SE Self-confidence, my friends call it."
Information Security Officer --Edgar Allan Poe--
DBA Emeritus
Curmudgeon-for-Life
Virginia Dept. of Education
epperson @
pen .
k12 .
va .
us
References:
|
|
