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

Fri Apr 26 12:10:36 UTC 2019

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell at isipp.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <beecher at 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).

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

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190426/ed13c736/attachment.html>