The END of RETENTION LIMITATIONS?

[Beck38]

Tripped across this today:

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopi...=50333#p542147

I hadn't read that, but lots of press on the newzbin trial.

Two quotes:

"Conclusion: usenet is now a mode of permanent file hosting."

"Pretty much all the major providers have for the last 6-12 months been retaining everything and increasing retention 1:1."

And one person who doesn't realize that usenet traffic has been increasing several megs per day over the last couple years, to the 5TB/day+ *easily verified at several site that count such things*

"Large retention has also been brought about by less people using this format"

[Cabalo]

Bigger retention = bigger attention brought on this protocol.
Not good, not good.

[Beck38]

Bigger retention = bigger attention brought on this protocol.
Not good, not good.

In the US, the law pertaining to newsgroups and newserver/providers, has been in place literally for 30+ years.

Irrespective of 'new' laws like the DMCA, news-providers/servers are protected by the same laws that protect the telcos from getting sued everytime someone uses a telephone to phone in a bomb threat (or anything else for that matter).

Where the FCC/Government went 'off the tracks' a bit was in classifying the internet as a 'message service', not part of the 'common carrier' regimen, some 20+ years ago; of course, at the time it appeared that doing so was 'correct', and the corporate entities of the time (AOL et. al.) liked it because it 'solved' their problems quickly and easily. At the time.

The FCC, in now reviewing that decision, in light of 'network neutrality', has pretty much come to the conclusion that originally doing so was a BIG mistake, and now, how to they correct it and put the entire ISP/Internet infrastructure into common carrier status (like voice traffic).

This is all pretty esoteric to those without some fairly deep knowledge of telco regulations, but right now it's where the hammer meets the road.

But as far as the actual providers, they're completely protected, sans some wacko Supreme Court decision overturning 100+ years of law (which we've already had this year from the 'activist' right-wing court, so....)

The part left 'dangling' is the part between those providers and the customers. The situation we have today is that the infrastructure (like the telcos) are completely protected (you can't sue or arrest them for 'carrying' that bomb threat), but the entity carrying it the last 10 yards can mangle, delay, halt, or simply loose the 'message', AT THEIR DISCRETION.

Pretty wild. Then again, I'd have never thought that telcos would go along with wholesale warrentless wiretapping, and where the Government would (though the backdoor) give them bennies for doing so. (Patriot Act). I know people back during Nixon that stared down (armed) Federal Marshals keeping them out of phone plants, now they welcome them in with open arms to do what they please.

Anyway, things now are in flux, but as I said, the law (as it is today, as I'm typing this) totally protects the servers (Giganews, Astraweb, et. al.). Everything else, not so much.