saku at ytti.fi
Wed Mar 22 13:43:28 UTC 2023
On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 15:26, Matt Harris <matt at netfire.net> wrote:
> When something is provided at no cost, I don't see how it can be unethical
> unless they are explicitly lying about the ways in which they use the data
> they gather.
> Ultimately, you're asking them to provide a costly service (support for
> end-users, the vast majority of whom will not ask informed, intelligent
> questions like the members of this list would be able to, but would still
> demand the same level of support) on top of a service they are already
> providing at no cost. That's both unrealistic and unnecessary. There's an
> exceedingly simple solution, here, after all: if you don't like their
> service or it isn't working for you as an end-user, don't use it.
Thank you for the philosophical perspective, but currently my interest is
not to debate merits or lack thereof in laissez-faire economics.
The problem is, a large number of people will use 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124 or
126.96.36.199 despite my or your position about it. There is incentive for
providers to provide it 'for free', as it adds value to their products as
users are compensating providers with the data.
Occasionally things don't work and when they do not, we need a way to
inform the provider 'hey you have a problem'. You could be anywhere in this
chain, with no ability to impact any of the decisions.
I know there is a real problem, I know real users are impacted, I know
almost none of them will have the ability to understand why there is a
problem or remediate it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG