Interesting case on Intermediary liabilities
This might be of interest to the ongoing discussions on intermediary liabilities. Google loses Australia 'gangland' defamation lawsuit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20153309 -Paul ________________________________ From: kictanet [kictanet-bounces+paul=article19.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] on behalf of Michael Bullut [main@kipsang.com] Sent: 30 October 2012 20:55 To: Paul Kimumwe Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who Controls the Internet? @ Kivuva & McTimm - I appreciate the correction... :-) Sent on the run, Please excuse errors & ommissions! On Oct 22, 2012 8:48 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah@gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Michael Bullut <main@kipsang.com<mailto:main@kipsang.com>> wrote: @McTim: I beg to differ on your first point. Ten out of thirteen of the Internet's root servers reside within the United States. yes, and several of these orgs are US gov bodies (NASA and the U.S. Army). As Kivuva mentioned, Anycast let's root-ops run servers in multiple locations, including 2 at KIXP. If there's a global issue & some countries differ with it on it's stand / viewpoint, what would the U.S. from blocking traffic to those countries' websites? Well, first of all, the US gov CANNOT change the rootzone file. They can give final approval to changes as per the existing agreement. What they actually do is check to see that processes have been followed, they DO NOT edit the rootzone file itself, nor can they. Second, what is in the rootzone DOES NOT determine traffic flows to individual websites. The rootzone is a list of TLDs and associated name server addresses for those TLDs. In other words, the US CANNOT block traffic to/from websites, you have been misled I am afraid. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Thanks Paul for the link. It raises the concern we raised here. What happens if someone requests an intermediary to bring down harmful/libelous content but the said intermediary does not deem that particular content harmful? An excerpt from the article: In 2009 Mr Trkulja's lawyers contacted Google to ask it to amend its results, and subsequently filed a lawsuit. Google argued that its results had been based on automated software processes and that, since it was not a publisher itself, put forward the defence of "innocent dissemination". In the meantime, please see this http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230. Would it be possible for Kenya to have this kind of provision? Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, news organizations are protected from defamation liability for content that is created by a third party. The law protects YouTube from libel lawsuits, and it protects bloggers and news organizations from defamatory comments that users may post. The law also protects retweets. So if a journalist or news organization were to retweet a defamatory statement, they would not be held accountable. If, however, they added a defamatory remark as part of the retweet, they could be. Interesting. RgdsGG
From: Paul@article19.org Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:36:10 +0000 Subject: [kictanet] Interesting case on Intermediary liabilities CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com
This might be of interest to the ongoing discussions on intermediary liabilities. Google loses Australia 'gangland' defamation lawsuit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20153309
-Paul
________________________________ From: kictanet [kictanet-bounces+paul=article19.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] on behalf of Michael Bullut [main@kipsang.com] Sent: 30 October 2012 20:55 To: Paul Kimumwe Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who Controls the Internet?
@ Kivuva & McTimm - I appreciate the correction... :-)
Sent on the run, Please excuse errors & ommissions!
On Oct 22, 2012 8:48 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah@gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Michael Bullut <main@kipsang.com<mailto:main@kipsang.com>> wrote:
@McTim:
I beg to differ on your first point. Ten out of thirteen of the Internet's root servers reside within the United States.
yes, and several of these orgs are US gov bodies (NASA and the U.S. Army). As Kivuva mentioned, Anycast let's root-ops run servers in multiple locations, including 2 at KIXP.
If there's a global issue & some countries differ with it on it's stand / viewpoint, what would the U.S. from blocking traffic to those countries' websites?
Well, first of all, the US gov CANNOT change the rootzone file. They can give final approval to changes as per the existing agreement.
What they actually do is check to see that processes have been followed, they DO NOT edit the rootzone file itself, nor can they.
Second, what is in the rootzone DOES NOT determine traffic flows to individual websites. The rootzone is a list of TLDs and associated name server addresses for those TLDs.
In other words, the US CANNOT block traffic to/from websites, you have been misled I am afraid.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
participants (2)
-
Grace Githaiga -
Paul Kimumwe