"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49f1c1fb$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services,
or
> > not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to
do
> > so.

> But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?

Fundamental free market principles is an excellent reason, IMO.

> I don't mind the ISP deciding what I can see and what I can't, as long as
> the ISP is *also* responsible for what they decide to deliver. If they're
> going to filter legal content, they should be responsible for not
filtering
> illegal content.

I think they should try to filter out illegal content anyway. But if
legislated, it would have to be legislated in a manner not to make
perfection a requirement. The legislation, if anything, should protect ISPs
from liability for trying to filter out illegal content but not entirely
succeeding (either false positives or false negatives). Same thing with spam
filters too.

Do you run an anti-virus program? Are they liable for not being able to
catch new viruses that are not in their databases? Are they liable for
misidentifying a benign application as malware? I think at least the same
degree of liability protection should be there for ISPs trying to do good.

Post a reply to this message