Mel, we will have to agree to disagree. I know that if I were representing any of these providers, I know what arguments I'd make, and we would almost certainly win.
Courts don't look kindly on breach of contract (nor on inducing breach of contract, as Packetstream is), and the ToSs very clearly state you cannot *resell* your residential bandwidth, which is precisely what is going on here (there is no legal theory of which I am aware under which that could be interpreted to mean "can’t perform paid consulting work by email over a residential link", novel though your theory is. Performing paid consulting work is *not* 'reselling bandwidth").
Anne
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
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.
If you put your apartment on airbnb without knowing whether subletting is against the terms of your lease… well, there’s just no cure for stupid.
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
That is an obnoxious signature block. Just sayin’.
Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...).
However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there:
Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)).
I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off).
Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this:
Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig
I want to clarify that while I didn’t say anything (since it wasn’t on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few people who spoke up share this opinion.
While I don’t feel it’s appropriate for people to complain about something so trivial as an email signature in a pseudo-professional setting, apparently we’re doing it today.
I don’t like email signatures in general, but since you asked for suggestions, I suggest using your name and one title that seems most relevant/important.
On another note: I don’t think you need credentials to be taken seriously here as long as you present a respectful and coherent argument. I would not have questioned your background if you had posted this without credentials, or if anyone else had posted it. I don’t recognize the names of most of the “top talkers” or know their credentials, other than my assumption that they are network operators of some sort.
I’m sorry that you’ve had negative experiences re: your background. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they choose to respect others and for what reasons. There is little we can do to influence that.
In article <44a32613-a255-44eb-a094-cee68b6d088a@Spark> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
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.
I was thinking the same thing, that'll do it. Or maybe videos showing
how to behead members of religious or cultural groups against whom
someone holds a grudge.
In article <003d01d4fc27$ba0bb300$2e231900$@netconsultings.com> you write:
But isn't there a law in US that protects oblivious or outright simple-mined
population from falling for these type of "easy money" schemes by
prohibiting these types of business?
If it became popular enough to be annoying I expect that the large
cable or phone providers could claim tortious interference by inducing
their customers to violate their contracts.
I assumed that something this sleazy would be offshore, but their
terms of service say they're in Los Angeles.
“Get a real West Hollywood address at 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109, US for your business, then get your mail online - as easy as…”
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)
Business internet contracts usually don’t prohibit resale, or, they place different limits on it. Residential contracts usually flat out prohibit it.
At least in theory, I would expect most cybercafe and other such operations to have a business class of service from the ISP.
wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon)
For residential end users, it probably does violate the ToS, but it’s unlikely such violation would be easily detected or enforced.
other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways
Unless you’re doing something illegal or making money selling your bandwidth, most things like this probably aren’t technically violations of the ToS.
i suppose they could just try to disallow resale or allow on-premises use even if revenue is received. the Fon business model seems pretty comparable to me.
I agree — I’m pretty sure that both the Fon model and the packetstream model are probably ToS violations for most residential services.
Also, unless I'm misreading their site, they expect users to download/run
an application program of unknown provenance and function, from an operation
that has gone to great lengths to conceal its location and principals.
What could possibly go wrong?
Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about.