[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
- Subject: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
- From: beecher at beecher.cc (Tom Beecher)
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 15:41:10 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CA[email protected]>
- References: <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> <[email protected]> <CA[email protected]>
It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'll
defer to Actual Lawyers obviously, but the way I see it, Packetstream
doesn't have any contractual or business relationship with my ISP. I do.
If I sell them my bandwidth, and my ISP decides to take action, they come
after me, not Packetstream. I can plead all I want about how I was just
running "someone else's software" , but that isn't gonna hold up, since I
am responsible for what is running on my home network, knowingly or
These guys likely just wrote a custom TOR client and a billing backend, and
are banking on the fact that most people running as the exit aren't going
to get caught by their provider. Ingenious, although shady. I do like they
have the classic pyramid scheme going for "income off referrals", just so
make sure you KNOW they're shady if you might have suspected otherwise. :)
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms at gmail.com>
> After all, it worked for Napster....
> Scott Helms
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>> In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87 at Spark> you write:
>> >feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming
>> on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?)
>> >but itâ??s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for
>> ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.
>> >to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how
>> the AUPs of carriers try to disallow
>> >bandwidth resale while permitting
>> >â?¢ cybercafe operations and other â??free wifi" (where internet service
>> might be provided for patrons in a
>> >hotel or cafe)
>> >â?¢ wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for
>> allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon)
>> >â?¢ other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and
>> openvpn gateways
>> To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are
>> different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's
>> residential TOS says:
>> You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used
>> only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless
>> otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited
>> from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole
>> or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ]
>> Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless
>> your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan.
>> (The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe
>> that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity.
>> As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is
>> that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts
>> and someone told them that is a good thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...