[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
> 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 unknowingly.
And *that* is *exactly* my concern. Because those users...('you' in this example)...they have *no idea* it is causing them to violate their ToS/AUP with their provider.
And this in part, is my reason for bringing it up here in NANOG - because (at least some of) those big providers are here. And those big providers are in the best position to stamp this out (if they think that it needs stamping out).
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:21 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> 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.
I would have appreciated a C&C warning on that. :-)
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop