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

[Mark Seiden <mis () seiden com>]

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 <beecher () 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.helms () gmail com> wrote:
> > > After all, it worked for Napster....
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Helms
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl () 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