Victory for Federal Express Corp upholding immunity under § 230. with implications for proxy servers

Discussion in 'privacy technology' started by justpeace, Jul 4, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. justpeace

    justpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Posts:
    48
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Victory for Federal Express Corp upholding immunity under § 230. with implications for proxy servers

    The case is Miller v. Federal Express Corp.

    This ruling could be great for owners of proxy servers and Tor exit nodes, since it treats a provider of internet access to multiple users as a ICS covered by § 230 and consequently wipes out publisher liability.

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=05d92755-3f4f-4e2d-8909-80e341446b1d


    " Discovery revealed that the first two comments were made by the vice president of corporate sponsorship at 500 Festival using a company computer located
    at 500 Festival’s offices. The third comment was made by an unknown person from an IP address assigned to FedEx and was not traceable to any specific user.
    Rather, it belonged to one of FedEx’s proxy servers that filtered internet traffic from thousands of FedEx users."
    [...]

    In Miller, the court determined 500 Festival and FedEx were both ICS providers because they enabled computer access for multiple users on their respective
    computer networks to access the Internet by means of the servers on each network. In doing so, the court cited a few cases where employers were sued for
    online employee misconduct including: Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 52 Cap.Rptr.3d 376 (Ca. Ct. App. 2006) (finding the employer was an ICS in
    suit against employer claiming an employee the employer claiming an employee sent them threatening emails and messages posted to online bulletin boards
    using the employer’s internet service connection); and Lansing v. Sw. Airlines Co., 980 N.E.2d 630, 631 (Ill. App. Co. 2012) (finding the employer was
    an ICS in suit for negligent supervision over an employee who sent threatening messages)."
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.