[kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries

[Odhiambo Washington]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Sylvester Kisonzo
<skisonzo at securenet.co.ke> wrote:
> I think ISPs should be subject to prosecution for 'harmful' content that may appear or flow thro their networks, unless:
> -they have explicitly stated otherwise, in some kind of terms & conditions, transferring responsibility for any such material to a third
> party - there is evidence that they have put in sufficient procedures & controls in place to prohibit such

Are you, by any chance, saying that ISPs need to "take a look at all
traffic" going through the wires and block what they think is
inappropriate? How do you define inappropriate content? In whose
context?
Talking from practical experience, it was very difficult to get a
universal definition of "harmful" content. What we came up with then
was debatable as some clients thought they were harmful, and requested
blockage, while others did not agree. Pornography is one such example.
And it's not right to censor what people do on the Internet after they
pay for the service. This is only done in China and you must be
knowing how popular it is with the Chinese.

> They must have policies that govern the way they do business with their clients, otherwise they could be used as superhighways
> without traffic rules, and can end up like some FM stations in Kenya... Somebody ought to be in control. How do we ensure it is not
> deliberate action?

I find it extremely out of scope trying to compare FM stations with
ISPs as they don't operate along the same protocols.

-- 
Best regards,
Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
Nairobi,KE
+254733744121/+254722743223
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

"Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!"
 --from a /. post