Re: [Openpacket-devel] New Beta Site Live

[David J. B. <da...@vo...>]

I definitely agree about the removal policy.  I also suggest that we
make the user re-affirm that they have the right to post the traffic and
that they agree to indemnify openpacket against any possible claims
by third parties related to that trace.  If we can have those, then I
think we're in pretty good shape.

Personally, I don't think we should get too hung up on inventing problems
for ourselves yet, though it's good that we have a plan for how to deal
with this upfront.

	David

Richard Bejtlich wrote:
> On 10/16/07, Tim Furlong <fu...@cc...> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> This is the right model, I think.  I also like the idea of adding a
> "request removal" to each trace instead of expecting someone to send
> an email.  If we receive a removal request that appears legitimate, I
> will not hesitate to remove the trace.
> 
> Even with these restrictions I think we could have a useful site!
> 
> Richard
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Openpacket-devel mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openpacket-devel