<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection" style="font-size: 14px; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;">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.
<div><br /></div>
</div>
<div name="messageReplySection" style="font-size: 14px; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, sans-serif;">On Apr 25, 2019, 12:43 PM -0700, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: thin solid #1abc9c;">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br /></div>
<div>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. :) <br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM K. Scott Helms <<a href="mailto:kscott.helms@gmail.com">kscott.helms@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: thin solid #e67e22;">
<div dir="ltr">After all, it worked for Napster....
<div><br /></div>
<div><br clear="all" />
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-4505008970099815788gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Scott Helms<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <<a href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com" target="_blank">johnl@iecc.com</a>> wrote:<br /></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 5px 5px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: thin solid #3498db;">In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@Spark> you write:<br />
>-=-=-=-=-=-<br />
><br />
>feeling cranky, are we, job? (accusing an antispam expert of spamming on a mailing list by having too long a .sig?)<br />
>but it’s true! anne runs the internet, and the rest of us (except for ICANN GAC representatives) all accept that.<br />
><br />
>to actually try to make a more substantial point, i am quite curious how the AUPs of carriers try to disallow<br />
>bandwidth resale while permitting<br />
><br />
>• cybercafe operations and other “free wifi" (where internet service might be provided for patrons in a<br />
>hotel or cafe)<br />
>• wireless access point schemes where you make money or get credit for allowing use of your bandwidth (e.g. Fon)<br />
>• other proxy services that use bandwidth such as tor exit nodes and openvpn gateways<br />
<br />
To belabor the fairly obvious, residential and business service are<br />
different even if the technology is the same. For example, Comcast's<br />
residential TOS says:<br />
<br />
You agree that the Service(s) and the Xfinity Equipment will be used<br />
only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless<br />
otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing. You are prohibited<br />
from reselling or permitting another to resell the Service(s) in whole<br />
or in part, ... [ long list of other forbidden things ]<br />
<br />
Their business TOS is different. It says no third party use unless<br />
your agreement permits it, so I presume they have a coffee shop plan.<br />
(The agreements don't seem to be on their web site.) I'd also observe<br />
that coffee shop wifi isn't "resale" since it's free, it's an amenity.<br />
<br />
As to how do these guys think they'll get away with it, my guess is<br />
that they heard that "disruption" means ignoring laws and contracts<br />
and someone told them that is a good thing.<br />
<br />
R's,<br />
John<br /></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>