Alan Greenberg wrote:
A question that I have (and it is a question, not a statement), is do people think it is possible to craft a policy that applies to those who are deliberately ignoring or even supporting illicit activities, and yet clearly not apply to those who with the best of intents, provide services to those with illicit intents?
I would tackle this through application in policy of the phrase "fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, shame on me". (There are variants of this saying, such that the clever one at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A ) The intent of such policy is to inform the "well intentioned" parties that their services are being used for ill purpose. Having been so informed, they can no longer claim innocence; they have the options of: 1) Terminating their relationship with bad actors under some terms of use breach, etc. 2) Being unable to terminate the relationship because their contract does not allow termination for the aforementioned ill purpose, so they can indicate an unwillingness to renew but can only wait until the renewal date 3) Ignoring the information, and continuing business as usual 4) Claiming surprise and a determination to end the practise, but in reality continuing business as usual (or perhaps reduce but not eliminate the bad activity) In cases 2 to 4, they can and should be held responsible for their role in aiding illicit activity. I may have some sympathy for scenario (2) in that the well-intentioned party was *so* naiive that they allowed for a relationship that they couldn't break despite the bad activity In all cases, having been properly informed the well-intentioned actor then is either able to eliminate the liability or accept its consequences. Of course, there has to be reasonable evidence of the "illicit activities", else that's an invitation for a slander suit. No doubt the threat of such suits would be used to (try to) prevent this kind of action; such tactics require some reasonable resolve on the part of the regulators. - Evan