nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell () isipp com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:06:14 -0600
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'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). And:
On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:21 PM, John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
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.
I would have appreciated a C&C warning on that. :-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Current thread:
- Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 24)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Paul Ferguson (Apr 24)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Job Snijders (Apr 24)
- 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)