[tahoe-dev] The Liability Question.

[joss-tahoedev at pseudonymity.net]

On 26/07/11 18:42, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> On 26/07/11 05:37, Ted Rolle Jr. wrote:
>> EFF is a great idea!  I'll check it out ... tomorrow.
>>
>> I don't know whether this is true, but are banks liable for storing illegal
>> funds?
> [...]
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Ted Rolle Jr. <stercor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Here's an example:
>>>> Hackers can discuss hacking techniques on the telephone, but the telco is
>>>> not liable.  That is, I don't believe they are.
>>>> Hackers can transmit viruses over telephone lines, but I don't believe
>>>> that the phone company accepts liability.
> 
> Banking and telecommunications are heavily government-regulated industries
> in most countries. Also telcos have "common carrier" status that shields them
> to some extent from legal liability, and banks have specific obligations to
> cooperate with law enforcement. So I'm not sure that any conclusions about
> their liability or otherwise are relevant to Tahoe-LAFS storage providers.

As with all discussions concerning law and the internet, jurisdiction is
also very important. "Common carrier" is a US concept which grew out of
English law, but is no longer really used in England. The European
equivalent, which I think is called a public carrier, also has
significant differences from the US common carrier. The Wikipedia page
on this topic is actually quite a good start in this case:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Common_carrier

It's also worth remembering that the interactions between ISPs, hosting
providers, service operators and users, combined with the relatively
recent appearance of the internet (from the perspective of legislation)
make this very complex and largely untried.

I know that all of that isn't really an answer, but this kind of legal
question only tends to have a "real" answer when it comes up in court. :)

(I am in no way a lawyer.)

Joss

-- 
Joss Wright
http://www.pseudonymity.net