I finally got around to reading the articles you gathered on hosting liability before xmas:
> A little more on the legal position of hosts if their users do naughty things....
>
> There is a useful paper here: http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/sites/pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/files/liberty.pdf
This interesting, but it seems to concern only ISPs, rather than hosting companies. We won't be providing users with access to the internet through our services, so hopefully we won't have such responsibilities.
> Hosts in Europe seem to get some protection - although not as much as they get in the USA. I have no idea whether English law overides Eurpean law, though. English law is quite damning on ISPs - as past case law seems to regard an ISP as a publisher, even if they are only blindly storing and forwarding material from elswhere. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Judge_and_Jury.html and http://www.nominet.com/disputes/caselaw/index/godfrey/
These two articles and the cases they relate to concern a different kind of distribution to mail hosting. The key case of Godfrey vs Demon Internet relates to Usenet hosting of libellous material. Demon Internet, who were both an ISP and also providor of Usenet hosting, continued to make libellous material (publicly?) available after they had been asked to remove it.
It seems to me that mail hosting is fundamentally different as far as copyright and libel law is concerned, because it does not distribute anything publicly; it only transmits information to specific people / computers (the senders and recipients of emails). As distribution is the point that cases always hinge on, it seems to me, as mail host provodiers we would not encounter these sorts of problems.
The only situation I can envisage that could make us liable for indirect copyright infringement or libel is one where one of our users was mass-mailing unsolicited, contested material (spamming). If this were ever to happen we would disable their accounts as soon as we were notified anyway, I imagine.
> However, it seems that there is some protection for hosts if they don't select who is using the site, and they don't actively monitor data.
Seeing as our only users would be ones who we have agreed to host, and accepted payment from, would that not be classified as selecting who uses our services? Or is that point moot in the case of mail hosting?
> if a complaint was received - then the only option might be to instantly "suspend" a user's account, as there wouldn't even be an option to look at the content passing through the system.
We could require some kind of evidence from the complainant before enacting a takedown, but it seems unlikely to me that we will receive takedown notices for encrypted email content stored on our servers except in the case of spamming described above.
> Unfortunately, the act of allowing users to push encrypted material through the server might be construed under law as complicity - ie. deliberately setting up a system that could be used for nefarious purposes.
Indeed. I wonder if there are any precedents for this interpretation being made by a court for services being provided relating to encryption.
I would also like to ask a contact of mine, Shaun Fensom, about this, as apparently he has experience with such matters and a background with ISPs.
Thoughts on any of the above?
Thanks,
Sam.
--
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke(a)jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org
> A little more on the lega postion of hosts if their users do naughty
> things....
This looks very interesting - I'm looking forward to reading the linked papers
properly when I have some time over Xmas.
Again, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I just saw this mail today :)
Sam.
--
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke(a)jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org
> My main gripe with the Adobe reader is how bloated it has become. It is no
> longer a quick download, and hasn't been for some years. This is on top of
> the philosophical issue over promoting proprietary software.
Yes, Adobe have corrupted the standard to the extent that an Adobe PDF file is
now just a vessel for a whole host of other technologies, including JS
applications, embedded documents in other formats, flash videos and
applications, and proprietary sound files.
> However, how about the story below for a bit of ammunition?
Indeed there are new security issues with Adobe every month, and the Internet
is rife with viruses that exploit them. I read about one virus that had about
ten different kinds of attacks for Adobe reader, and chose which ones to use
depending on the version that was installed. I also read last year that Adobe
software was the #1 source of security breaches on Windows.
Of course Free Software applications can be insecure too, but I gather that
they are far more secure than Adobe reader, no doubt partly because they are
A. Free Software and B. less widely used and therefore less of a target.
Improved security is indeed one of the benefits of using a FS PDF reader that
we state when promoting the campaign. Out of interest the FSF in the states
are about to launch their own version.
Thanks,
Sam.
--
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke(a)jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org
> One thought I had was ticketing services. There are lots of groups that
> need to sell tickets online, but would rather avoid having to pay the
> commissions charged by the usual ticketing companies. Eg. Fringe theatre
> companies & fringe venues, amdram societies, small music venues (I'm sure
> there are lots more). There would still be a cost in using a card payment
> service, of course, but the front end could run on the society's private
> server for free. All it needs is someone to write that free front end.
> Hmmm. ;-)
Are you thinking of an online event management / booking system, like
EventBrite? If so, I happen to working on a project will be a Free Software
alternative:
http://eventfreedom.org/
The plan is to offer a hosted solution as well as the source code for download
(its licensed as AGPL). Check out the wiki for planned features. Still work in
progress, but feel free to chip in your skills :)
If you had in mind a ticketing system that can be used at an actual venue,
like a point of sale solution then maybe you'd be interested in Lemon POS:
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/Lemon+POS?content=69945
Thanks,
Sam.
--
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke(a)jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org
I just realised that I haven't been receiving messages to the Manchester list
since November, so I didn't see the messages from Anna and David until today -
sorry!
I switched to a new groupware server recently and changed all my mail accounts
and sieve filter scripts, somewhere along the way I stopped getting the
Manchester@ messages, although I'm still the list admin.
Anyway, should now be fixed, but just wanted to explain and apologise.
Best,
Sam.
--
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke(a)jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org
Sheridan,
I know it's been silent since we last talked about situating a community mail
server in Arcspace, but we have had much discussion about it at our end.
We've looked into different types of hardware, and are still investigating
things like the maximum level of privacy that we could offer users. It looks
like a single plug computer (FreedomBox) would not be sufficient to perform as
both a mail server and also a web server (for a webmail client to the mail
server). We could use multiple FBs (though we couldn't cluster them it seems),
or we could use alternative hardware, like a Fit PC 3 (much more system
resources and still only 9 watts, see http://s.coop/7r85), but either of those
options would require several hundred pounds investment to purchase and ship
new machines (especially as prices of HDDs recently more than doubled).
During our last Fellowship meeting we wondered whether Arcspace has a spare
machine that we could use for the initial server. Investing money in new low
power hardware would make more sense once we already have some users signed up
and therefore some income for the project guaranteed. We could then migrate
from one server to another (I have experience with this, and both machines
would presumably have the same architecture and use the same OS).
Do you have a machine available that we could use? Would you / Arcspace be
happy for us to use it as an Arcspace server for as long as it took to get our
initial group of users / members? I realise that using an old machine like
this has cost implications for you as it would draw more power. However, as a
headless server I see no reason why it would require more than about 250-300
watts maximum. Ideally it would be a dual core machine with 1 or 2gb RAM, but
obviously it depends on what you have available.
Thanks,
Sam.
--
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke(a)jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org
I guess if the service is initaiily going to be email - then the domain would have to be one that (a) people are going to feel comfortable with giving out (b) will roll off the tongue easily (c) will not be regularly miss-spelled after being heard.
And yes, all the decent ones do seem to have been taken ;-)
My own view is that a compound name shouldn't combine more than two words. And each word should embody a different concept.
What concepts would people regards as appealing?
Green issues? Privacy? Freedom? What about humour? or aspiration? Maybe create a bunch of headings, and list words under each
BTW, maybe terms like "online" and "internet" make names sound rather 90s.
I guess it's all just semiotics, really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
________________________________________
From: Anna Morris [say.hello.to.anna(a)googlemail.com]
Sent: 12 December 2011 21:20
To: D.Bolton U0970268
Cc: manchester(a)lists.fsfe.org
Subject: Re: [Manchester] Legal position of hosts
Hey, sorry I haven't read all of the below, bit tired. Been thoughtshowering name again. Most of the good ones are taken tbh, its a bit of a shit, However, Cloudfromspace is available where FROM is FReedomOnlineManchester. Ok. Its stupid. FROM Is a great and appropriate acronym though, as is MINE (manchester internet enterprise) but there is just nothing available with them that I can think of without being mad like cloudfromspace.
Anyone have any ideas?
Anna
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM, D.Bolton U0970268 <U0970268(a)unimail.hud.ac.uk<mailto:U0970268@unimail.hud.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hi Folks,
A little more on the lega postion of hosts if their users do naughty things....
There is a useful paper here: http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/sites/pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/files/liberty.pdf
Hosts in Europe seem to get some protection - although not as much as they get in the USA. I have no idea whether English law overides Eurpean law, though. English law is quite damning on ISPs - as past case law seems to regard an ISP as a publisher, even if they are only blindly storing and forwarding material from elswhere. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Judge_and_Jury.html<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Ernc1/Judge_and_Jury.html> and http://www.nominet.com/disputes/caselaw/index/godfrey/
The main problem areas seem to be related to the UK libel laws, copyright infringement, and "illegal" images. However, it seems that there is some protection for hosts if they don't select who is using the site, and they don't actively monitor data. Once notified of possible dodgy data, though, then the host is obliged to look at it and do something about it. In the UK, due to the outcome of the infamouse Godfrey vs Demon case (see above), hosts have usually deleted content at the slightest sniff of trouble - even if the content was legal.
I guess if a server was encrypted to a level where admins can't read any of the traffic - and the users were not "selected" by the host organisation, then the admins could be protected to some extent. But - if a complaint was received - then the only option might be to instantly "suspend" a user's account, as there wouldn't even be an option to look at the content passing through the system. Unfortunately, the act of allowing users to push encrypted material through the server might be construed under law as complicity - ie. deliberately setting up a system that could be used for nefarious purposes.
Any comments? Whose going to the MFS xmas do at MadLab tomorrow?
David
_______________________________________________
Manchester mailing list
Manchester(a)lists.fsfe.org<mailto:Manchester@lists.fsfe.org>
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/manchester
--
www.ethical-pets.co.uk<http://www.ethical-pets.co.uk> - The pet shop thats all sorts of ethical!
Hi Folks,
A little more on the lega postion of hosts if their users do naughty things....
There is a useful paper here: http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/sites/pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/files/liberty.pdf
Hosts in Europe seem to get some protection - although not as much as they get in the USA. I have no idea whether English law overides Eurpean law, though. English law is quite damning on ISPs - as past case law seems to regard an ISP as a publisher, even if they are only blindly storing and forwarding material from elswhere. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Judge_and_Jury.html and http://www.nominet.com/disputes/caselaw/index/godfrey/
The main problem areas seem to be related to the UK libel laws, copyright infringement, and "illegal" images. However, it seems that there is some protection for hosts if they don't select who is using the site, and they don't actively monitor data. Once notified of possible dodgy data, though, then the host is obliged to look at it and do something about it. In the UK, due to the outcome of the infamouse Godfrey vs Demon case (see above), hosts have usually deleted content at the slightest sniff of trouble - even if the content was legal.
I guess if a server was encrypted to a level where admins can't read any of the traffic - and the users were not "selected" by the host organisation, then the admins could be protected to some extent. But - if a complaint was received - then the only option might be to instantly "suspend" a user's account, as there wouldn't even be an option to look at the content passing through the system. Unfortunately, the act of allowing users to push encrypted material through the server might be construed under law as complicity - ie. deliberately setting up a system that could be used for nefarious purposes.
Any comments? Whose going to the MFS xmas do at MadLab tomorrow?
David
Noticed the PDF reader campaign in the archives. Very interesting.
My main gripe with the Adobe reader is how bloated it has become. It is no longer a quick download, and hasn't been for some years. This is on top of the philosophical issue over promoting proprietary software.
However, how about the story below for a bit of ammunition?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/adobe-pdf-reader-zero-day-under-attack/9…
David
Hi <waves>
Just saying hello. It was nice meeting those of you who came to the meeting last month. It's certainly given me some food for thought :-)
All the best,
David
https://joindiaspora.com/u/frogfall