nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: Mark Milhollan <mlm () pixelgate net>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
Just ran into packetstream.io:
How can this not be a violation of the ToS of just about every major provider?
Sounds like a "paid" TOR. Is TOR a ToS violation too -- the EFF would probably like to hear of it if so. Or just the aspect of reselling one's service?
/mark
Current thread:
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?, (continued)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Ross Tajvar (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mark Seiden (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? John Levine (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Owen DeLong (Apr 26)