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

I suspect this stems from the incorrect assumption that Section 230 style protections extend outside the US.

Even if they did, I don't think that they would be enough to allow for the NCC to start "naming and shaming" companies / members based on this kind of thing
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ 
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 17/01/2020, 17:54, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Richard Clayton" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of richard at highwayman.com> wrote:

    In message <1609071E-BF44-4E1D-9C81-98616F11BF59 at consulintel.es>, JORDI
    PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> writes
    
    >?El 16/1/20 21:37, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton" <anti-abuse-wg-
    >bounces at ripe.net en nombre de richard at highwayman.com> escribió:
    >
    >    In message <A882C67B-0BB5-4EE3-B4CF-7C5EE62CD931 at consulintel.es>, JORDI
    >    PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> writes
    >    
    >    > I'm sure if the 
    >    >service provider tries to avoid being "informed" by not looking at 
    >notifications 
    >    >(email, postal, fax, etc.), they will also be liable in front of courts.
    >    
    >    correct, but that's a "Hosting" aspect and that's not necessarily the
    >    issue when considering spam (which is certainly some of what is being
    >    considered under the generic "abuse" label)
    >
    >I'm not sure to understand what do you mean. In my opinion, if the hosting 
    >provider is the resource-holder of the addresses being used for any abuse 
    >(including spam), he is the responsible against the law and he is consequently 
    >liable of possible damages.
    
    The ECommerce Directive gives a free pass to companies that just pass
    packets around ("Mere Conduit") ... so if you complain to AS<n> that
    there is a spammer using their network and they do nothing then suing
    them is unlikely to be productive.
    
    You need, in such a matter, to take proceedings against the spammer (and
    the Court may assist you in compelling the network provider to reveal
    what they know about the spammer).
    
    The ECommerce Directive also gives a free pass to a hosting company in
    respect of material they publish such as (where this thread started) a
    website claiming the people operating AS<n> are pondscum and regularly
    rape their mothers ... but once the hosting company has "actual
    knowledge" of this defamatory material then they must act to remove it.
    If they do not do so then you can take legal proceedings against them
    for continuing to publish the libel.
    
    You may have some opinion of your own as to whether this is right (and
    this, as covered earlier, is not the same in the USA) ...
    
    ... but until you explain exactly the legal basis on which you intend to
    proceed against a resource holder and exactly the sort of harm which
    they are facilitating (not all abuse is the same in law) then it's
    impossible to say whether some special situation applies (and your
    opinion about liability is correct) or whether the overarching
    provisions of the ECommerce Directive (which override laws that appear
    to say something else) mean that you cannot proceed against a network
    provider at all or a hosting company that does not have actual
    knowledge.
    
    IANAL, jurisdictions differ (but Directives bind all EU Member States)
    
    -- 
    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