On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:09 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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). 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 > >
