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

Thu Apr 25 19:41:10 UTC 2019

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 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> After all, it worked for Napster....
>
>
> Scott Helms
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87 at 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190425/5d3a2032/attachment.html>