I¹m not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I would guess
that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of caveat
has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means ISPs
can¹t block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff like block a
site/IP address that may be the source of an attack, etc.
- Jason
I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is pretty well settled.
And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it or not.
Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
Things like gambling are the question, as that changes per location.
A better question is: Can ISPs sell things like "filtering" services for a fee? Blocking is disallowed. But that is blocking by the ISP. Affirmative requests from the end user to block things are probably OK. But ... has anyone seen the actual rules?
Which is the "jurisdiction in question" ? the originating website? the
ISP? the CDN network's corporate home? my home?
I wonder if lawyer sit around all day and argue about CIDR notation
Original Message
Again, well settled.
It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all nodes for exactly this reason.
Almost certainly not, because there's no murky gray areas about CIDR
notation, much less ones that potentially affect how they do their jobs.
Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet
traffic"; with "Internet traffic not prohibited by law and not
related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."
The use of the phrase "LAWFUL" introduces ambiguity, since any
traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
unlawful.
Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
definition.... Unlawful as well....
Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not
be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block
traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me?
Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's
censorship laws on us?
Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet
traffic"; with "Internet traffic not prohibited by law and not
related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."The use of the phrase "LAWFUL" introduces ambiguity, since any
traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
unlawful.
Since we are talking about US law, you are not correct.
Anything not specifically prohibited by law in the US is lawful.
Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
definition.... Unlawful as well….
Sorry, but no, that’s simply not accurate in the united states as legal terminology applies:
From law.com <http://law.com/> (I’m too cheap to pay for a subscription to Black’s):
unlawful
adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents
Ergo, lawful would be anything which is not in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents.
Owen
This is absurd.
The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out at the source by them.
The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out there by them.
In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t read the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by the federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law would still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route traffic to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due process is violating US law.
Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce anything.
Owen
I am sure The Gibson guitar company thought the same thing about the EPA.
At least we can be sure that a TLA govt agency wouldn't be used to
harass an administration's political opponents, right?