[Openpacket-devel] New Beta Site Live

[Tim F. <fu...@cc...>]

On 10/16/07, Richard Bejtlich <tao...@gm...> wrote:
>
> On 10/16/07, David J. Bianco <da...@vo...> wrote:
> >
> > To me, the big worry is that an OpenPacket user will upload a pcap
> > with someone *else's* information in it.  It's hard to come up with a
> > TOS that releases you from liability when the injured party is not
> > bound by the TOS.
> >
> > Or maybe it's not.  I'm no lawyer.  But surely some other sites
> (Wireshark,
> > perhaps) must have already dealt with this issue.
> >
> >         David
> >
> >
>
> Hi David,
>
> That's a really good point.
>
> Re: other sites -- they appear to have ignored the issue.  Places like
>
> http://www.packet-level.com/traces/index.htm
>
> seem to host all lab-generated content.
>
> Others like
>
> http://wiki.wireshark.org/SampleCaptures
>
> just ignore privacy concerns, or at least they don't say how they
> address those concerns.
>
> Richard


Hi folks,

A good analogy might be the sites like YouTube that host user-submitted
content and the posting of copyrighted material (and, to a lesser extent,
private information).  So far, they seem to be getting away with just
having mechanisms for copyright holders to request that the site remove
their material - my lay impression is that they have not been successfully
sued for damages yet.

An interesting case to follow, from the perspective of OpenPacket.org, might
be the family that was beaten by gatecrashers after details of a house party
were posted to YouTube
(http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL1249768320071012).
I don't think anyone is pursuing action against YouTube yet, or if they
will, but it might generate some discussion about the responsibility of
YouTube, which might turn up some salient information on the applicable
laws.  It seems to be the most closely analogous example to what we're
worried about.

-Tim

-- 
Tim Furlong
tim...@gm...