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.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > After all, it worked for Napster.... > > > Scott Helms > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:23 PM John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > >> In article <af762f22-9431-4137-b87e-2444a62bdd87@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 >> >