Comcast and SORBS

[Don Levey]

discuss-bounces at blu.org wrote:
> Don Levey wrote:
>>>> I have no illusion about "privacy" rights when I'm using
>>>> someone else's private property for my transmission, even under
>>>> contract. And they'd be fools to permit unmonitored communication
>>>> over their network.
>>>
>>> I used to run major operations at two different ISPs.  If I ever
>>> said anything like the above in a forum visible to customers, there
>>> would have been serious consequences.
>>>
>> Probably; a major attack of honesty is often not good for
>> (traditional) businesses.  But allow me to rephrase slightly:
>> "And they'd be fools to permit unmonitored communication under all
>> circumstances over their network."
>
> Case in point: For much of the  past  three  years,  I've  done  some
> consulting  work  for  a  big  comm company (which one isn't relevant
> here), and I did much of the work at home.  The  team  was  scattered
> around  the world, so at the start there was some discussion of which
> email addresses we should use.
>
Was this under the auspices of a larger contracting house, or as a
collection of individuals?  If the former, then the contracting house's
address should have been used.  if the latter, then the company to which you
were consulting should have provided you addresses.
...
>
> As the world's communications transfer over to the Internet,  we  can
> expect   that  the  "private  property"  argument  will  become  less
> acceptable for comm links in general.   Yes,  the  ISP  may  own  the
> physical link (or the spectrum for wireless). But that shouldn't give
> them a right to interfere with my communication, or to  intercept  it
> and use it for their own purposes.
>
YOu're saying several things here.  As the "private property" argument loses
its acceptance, what attraction does carrying traffic hold when a business
can be compelled by an outside party?  For varying definitions of the word
"interfere," I can agree with you.  And certainly intercepting and using
your communication for their purposes is just plain wrong.

> This isn't a trivial concern.  We've already seen such things as: The
> "child  protection"  filters  routinely block not only porn, but also
> web sites of the filterers' competitors.

And this is an excellent reason not to use those products.  Blocking
competitors?  Sounds like unlawful anti-competitive practices (tortious
interference, perhaps?) right there.

> And last year, msn.com  was
> caught  extracting things (mostly images) from their customers' email
> and using them in ads.

Somehow I missed that one.  Should have been a big lawsuit.

> When caught, the companies invariably make  a
> big  noise  about  how they've reformed and won't do it again.  Yeah;
> right.  Not until enough time has gone  by  that  they  think  you've
> forgotten and they can get away with it if they're more careful.
>
True, I'm not inclined to trust businesses to look out for my welfare.

> In any case, the concern is obvious: If an ISP can intercept messages
> to/from  tech workers like me, they have a very good tool to find out
> what their competitors are planning. This gives them advanced warning
> so  they  can  take  steps to block their competitors' intrusion into
> their market.  This is a great idea if you think that  communications
> should be under the control of a private monopoly.  If you want to be
> able to communicate as you wish, or if you like to  have  alternative
> ISPs, you might give the subject a bit more thought.
>
We've already established that they have the ability to do so - but there
are already laws in effect that make use of such information unlawful
activity.  If you're looking for alternatives, you may want to consider
face-to-face communication.  Anything else may be subject to (unlawful)
tampering.

> Historically, there have been good reasons for  "public"  control  of
> communications.   Not that any government is perfect, of course.  But
> it's a lot better than what happens when you have  "private"  control
> of communication, and you are only allowed to communicate things that
> are approved by the owner of the comm equipment.
>
There is one entity that I trust even less than large corporations in such
an instance: the government.  Somehow they always seem to screw things up.
Instead of forcing businesses to pass all traffic unrestricted, they should
make unlawful what the activities they want to stop: namely, the misuse of
information.

> BTW, there's an important reason why contract law isn't much help  in
> this  topic.  Consider this message.  Chances are that I don't have a
> contract with your ISP.  Your contract is irrelevant to what your ISP
> does  with  this  message.   Your  ISP  can  read this message and do
> anything they like with it, because they have no  contract  with  me.
> They can extract all the addresses, including yours, and sell them to
> spammers.  They can save this message however they like, and use  its
> contents  commercially.   And neither of us can find out that they're
> doing it; it's all "private".
>
If contract law were the only thing in effect, you'd be correct.  The
biggest concern is finding out that they're doing it - once that happens,
the rest goesto the courts.  But that is the same concern regardless of the
laws in effect.  We've already determined that your traffic can be
monitored, just with a little more effort.

 -Don