Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 19:54:15 +0100 From: Mark Konkol <mark@works.co.uk> To: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Binaries in Usenet (was: News...) Message-ID: <9704211854.AA01096@works.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <335B87BF.752DDE15@denverweb.net> References: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970420135811.10900L-100000@sidhe.memra.com> <9704211358.AA00543@works.co.uk> <335B87BF.752DDE15@denverweb.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Blaine Minazzi wrote: > The sqid cache is not there for users to access directly... True, but then again, do you let users access the news spool directly? A cache that users can't access at all isn't really much use :) I still think the distinction is a bit arbitrary. Squid certainly can store stuff on disk - if you're running BSD it can't help but do so! (Not in any easy-to-read form, granted, but it's still there...) In the end, you're still offering a service that people can access in order to retrieve potentially illegal material. In any event, suppose someone were to write a web cache that wrote pages to disk (to save memory and make sure the cache didn't empty on a reboot) and to prefetch pages from commonly visited sites (to increase response time over ever-scarce bandwidth). Would the ISP then become liable? > If the stuff is being retrieved from a server inside > the USA though, the person who made the images available is subject to > prosecution. Indeed, so why does this not apply to the originator of a news posting rather than the hapless ISP? If you caught me in a cynical mood (perish the thought :) I might suspect that the real distinction is one of finger-pointing. Web servers are easy to find, ISPs are easy to find, posters to newsgroups can be as hard to grab as greased eels :) --- Mark Konkol Complete Works Ltd. 399 Strand London WC2R 0LT Tel: +44(0)171 836 0808 Fax: +44(0)171 836 0440 http://www.works.co.uk/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9704211854.AA01096>