[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

In message <44130.1579053145 at segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> writes

>That comment, and that concern, certainly does not seem to apply in any
>country in which either eBay or TripAdvisor operate.
>
>Do you folks on your side of the pond not receive eBay?  Are you not able to
>view Tripadvisor.Com?
>
>Here in this country (U.S.) there are actually -three- separate and clearly
>discrenable legal protections that would cover and that do cover circumstances
>like this.  In no particular order, they are:
>
>     (*)  The First Amendment.

that constrains the US Government as to what laws they pass ... it does
not constrain corporate policy (so a bit of a red herring)

of course there are constitutions in many countries in the RIPE region,
but none (AFAIK) are quite as sweeping in this area

>     (*)  47 USC 230(c)(1)
>
>     (*)  47 USC 230(c)(2)(B)

these (which are the most interesting parts of the Communications
Decency Act that did not get invalidated by the application of the First
Amendment which swept away much of it) provide a safe harbour for the
people operating platforms regarding what the users of those platforms
say ... so yes this is very much on point

within the EU (and the RIPE region is far bigger than that) there is NOT
an equivalent regime -- there is a safe harbour (under the ECommerce
Directive) for hosting companies but ONLY up to the point at which they
have "actual knowledge" that material is problematic (eg that it is
defamatory) after that they are on the hook if they fail to act
appropriately

companies such as EBay and TripAdvisor are well aware of this and
operate their platforms accordingly -- so this means that problematic
material will not be visible within the EU (and doubtless in other RIPE
region countries) ... whether they remove it entirely (so that US
residents miss out) I could not say, you'd need to ask each company
individually as to how they configure their systems

note that companies that operate solely in the USA can take some solace
from the USA SPEECH Act (which addresses the issue of enforcing
"foreign" libel judgments in the USA) but of course eBay etc operate in
Europe as well --- and of course RIPE NCC is based in The Netherlands

viz: failure to remove libels would be costly

>The middle one is actually the first-order go-to provision for situations
>like this, and provides for quick dismissal for any silly cases brought
>against *me* for something that *you* have said on some discussion or
>review web site that I just happen to provide electricity, connectivity,
>and CPU cycles for.

since I understand you to be in the USA, you're correct

>One would hope that european law might have some counterpart for that,
>but I confess that I really have no idea about that, one way or the other.

basically not -- at least once there is "actual knowledge"

please note IANAL, but I do follow these issues so the above is mainly
correct :)

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200115/d9aa6a0d/attachment.sig>