12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Yes, they CAN block you

by Paul Myers
10 replies
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...eringimmunity/

Executive summary: A US federal appeals court ruled that companies that sell filtering software which downloads updates from a central server cannot be held liable for damages to blocked companies.


Paul
#block
  • Profile picture of the author Tracy Shaffer
    Then it'll be important to have people not want to block you =)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921412].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    I should think not.
    Quite a few people think that filtering companies, and even ISPs, should be liable for damages done through good faith efforts to keep out undesirable content. Most of the ones that make noise about it really are undesirable, unsurprisingly.

    There are a lot of interesting implications in the judge's comments.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921518].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Very interesting Paul.
      Makes me think about when I try to go to Windows updates using FireFox.



      The ruling could have a dark side, however, potentially opening the door for anti-competitive practices. A browser-maker, for example, could choose to block access to competing websites, or filter out search engine results critical of the company.
      That danger was not lost on the court, which wrote that "extending immunity beyond the facts of this case could pose serious problems if providers of blocking software were to be given free license to unilaterally block the dissemination of material by content providers under the literal terms" of the law.
      The law might empower a software company to "abuse immunity to block content for anti-competitive purposes or merely at a malicious whim."
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921552].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Thom,
        Makes me think about when I try to go to Windows updates using FireFox.
        That's a good example, but one can make arguments about software compatibility that might be applicable.

        I think the judge was right in suggesting that Congress should clarify their intent. Still, the "good faith" requirement in the CDA doesn't seem to be a universal free pass.

        This is one of those, "It needs a good lawyer" things...


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921576].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author InternetMarketingIQ
    Works both ways. What heppens when the only content you can view is what Corporate America wants you to view?
    Signature
    Internet Marketing IQâ„¢
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Works both ways. What heppens when the only content you can view is what Corporate America wants you to view?
      That's where it gets interesting. That gets into where the boundaries of "good faith" begin and end. Not to mention some fun discussions about common carrier status.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921636].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Paul,

        I've not thought of all the possible consequences of this, but I was happy to see that zango got told to shove it.
        Signature


        Roger Davis
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921752].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    Ive got mixed feelings about this.

    On one hand, I'm glad. It helps spam haus and since I started using them, my spam is almost gone.

    But I dont like how spybot ads affiliate companies to the list.

    I do think every company needs a removal/review policy though.

    Garrie
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    WOW, people have been doing this for a LONG time! MOST of my customers have been using:

    Websense.com - Web security, email security, data security

    GRANTED, some stuff is just WRONG, but they have enough things right that they provide a good service. To mandate, by law, that they could not give companies info regarding spamming and content would be unfair and really unconstitutional.

    BTW for websense, SOME stuff can be allowed regardless, or can be appealed to the administrator.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[921918].message }}

Trending Topics