nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:10:36 -0700
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell () isipp com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote: It seems like just another example of liability shifting/shielding. I'lldefer 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 “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right? Matthew Kaufman
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? Mark Seiden (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? John Levine (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? K. Scott Helms (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Tom Beecher (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 25)
- RE: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? adamv0025 (Apr 26)
- 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? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Rich Kulawiec (Apr 27)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mike Hammett (Apr 27)
- 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? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 26)
- 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? Mike Hammett (Apr 26)
- 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? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- 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? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- 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)