[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?

And that is the conundrum here I think. It's very difficult (for me) to
providers, this company is trying to do something sketchy, you should take
action to stop it from working."

Reselling bandwidth/access to your residential internet connection isn't
(to my knowledge) breaking any criminal LAWS. It's only violating the ToS
between you and your provider, to which they have a remedy of canceling
your account if they decide to. (Maybe there's civil action there? I
dunno.) So for anything not violating laws I'm not sure I want ISPs
interfering with traffic at all.

On the flip side, maybe ISPs can be pragmatic about this, and send warnings
to people who may start using this..."service". Give them a heads up that
they appear to be doing something that is in violation of the ToS, and if
they continue, their account might be canceled. Be a nicer method than just
0 to canceled in one go.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <
> amitchell at isipp.com> wrote:
>> > 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).
> So providers should stamp this out (because it is â??badâ??) and support
> customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are â??goodâ??). Did I get
> that right?
> Matthew Kaufman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190426/5296cf87/attachment.html>