particularly "interesting" when someone downloads CP (or, as it now seems to be called, CSAM) using their ipaddr and causes them to become a Person of Interest.
On Apr 25, 2019, 12:43 PM -0700, Tom Beecher <beec...@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. > > 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.he...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > After all, it worked for Napster.... > > > > > > > > > Scott Helms > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@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 it’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 > > > > > > > > > > > >• cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service > > > > > >might be provided for patrons in a > > > > > >hotel or cafe) > > > > > >• wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit > > > > > >for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon) > > > > > >• 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. > > > > > > > > > > R's, > > > > > John
