> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Tom Beecher <[email protected]> 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).
And:
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:21 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
I would have appreciated a C&C warning on that. :-)
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
