Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISPs Known for Defending Their Customer's Rights?

Posted by Cliff on from the not-rolling-over-for-corporate-interests dept.

lieumorrison asks: "With the recent examples of some US based Internet service providers going overboard in their desire to stay on the good side of the law, I ask Slashdot readers: What ISPs have a reputation of protecting their costumers by not arbitrarily giving in to C&D orders and such, without first contacting their lawyers? (ISPs hosting in the US or abroad; based on reactions in the past)"

85 comments

  1. Speakeasy.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You know what you get, and they have some of the brightest people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with at an ISP.

    1. Re:Speakeasy.net by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not to mention they let you run servers off your connection, won't block outgoing ports like 25 or incoming ports like 80.

      If google were to be an ISP, they should buy Speakeasy, since it would go well with their "Do no evil" mantra.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    2. Re:Speakeasy.net by markild · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. It seems like a lot of ISP tries to find out what service hugs the biggest amount of bandwidth, then finds out if it can be used to illegal activities in any ways (such as file sharing etc), then blocks it.

      I'm not saying that people won't be using their server for illegal activities, it's just that there's (still) a bunch of legal things to do with open ports.

      Luckily for me, over here in Norway, we're pretty much let to ourselves. It's more like a need to know basis here. If you can figure out how to configure your firewall, you will be able to use what service you want. If you don't figure it out, it's probably a good idea to not give you unfiltered connection to the net.

      --
      Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
      Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
    3. Re:Speakeasy.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but how would Speakeasy's policies fit with Google's work censoring their chinese users at the behest of the commies ?

    4. Re:Speakeasy.net by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I've had great luck with pagesgarden.com as a host. I have a gripe site there:
      http://farmersreallysucks.com/
      and when the lawyers came knocking the ISP said take it up with the domain admin, we ain't touching it because it doesn't violate our terms of service (no porn, spam, hate, all reasonable and basic).
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re:Speakeasy.net by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

      Awesome ISP with incredible service (you can talk to human people!) and just all-around good packages that don't screw you on bandwidth or static IPs!

      Downside:
      1. They will honor a C&D served against you, but they will honor it anonymously (ie. stop serving copyrighted X or we temporarily suspend your line) and won't give your details for anything short of a warrant.

      2. And this is more of a personal itch, but they don't have ipv6 yet, which is kind of a bummer.

      amazing freaking isp. and great notification for coming downtime or local network problems.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    6. Re:Speakeasy.net by henleg · · Score: 1

      Many ISPs block port 25 for outgoing traffic, and I think this is a good thing, BUT - you should as a single user be able to sign a paper where you take full responsibility of what happens with your computer and then port 25 (and others) should be opened.

      The thing is that the above isn't very common! :(

    7. Re:Speakeasy.net by henleg · · Score: 1

      Google are like any other capitalistic company: they want to make money. Selling out their "good-company" image silently in China is a way to make money and entering a new market.

      Let's face it, how much do we know about what's going on in China?


      Btw, isn't Google buying up a lot of black-fibre across the United states? Maybe they will launch their own ISP, across their own network?

  2. Videotron in Canada by darthgnu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Videotron in Canada is one of the biggest cable companies around where I live. They have shared interests with Quebecor/big media, they are known for disclosing customer data to third parties, if you care about your privacy, do not pick this ISP.

    --
    Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
    1. Re:Videotron in Canada by Darkinspiration · · Score: 1

      problem is there's still the fastest in quebec.... dam there cable monopoly

    2. Re:Videotron in Canada by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1

      I'm doing alright with Sympatico High Speed at the moment here in Montreal. Running my own site and have no issues. Speed is good, no complaints.

      --
      I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
    3. Re:Videotron in Canada by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention they are a fair source of spam...
       
      http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-ab use.sightings/search?hl=en&group=news.admin.net-ab use.sightings&q=videotron&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+ this+group

    4. Re:Videotron in Canada by Darkinspiration · · Score: 1

      i've had several problem with sympatico in the past. It would seem that my sector has old lines. Still on paper videotron is the fastest.

  3. Costumers? by toddbu · · Score: 4, Funny
    What ISPs have a reputation of protecting their costumers by not arbitrarily giving in to C&D orders and such...?

    Wouldn't an ISP protect its customers. Or maybe they really like their costumes.

    --
    If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
  4. Not Johns Hopkins University by USSJoin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Technically not an ISP as such, but they definitely provide internet connectivity.
    During the Diebold/DMCA issue, they caved and forced their students to remove materials, before consulting anybody, and then, even when advised that Diebold wasn't going to do anything, they still prohibited the sharing of information. See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=htt p%3A//www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebol d/Decl_of_Laroia_w_Exhs.pdf&ei=xtoDQ7vVOa2CYaufjNg I for one affadavit. (PDF Warning)

  5. The answer is simple. by imstanny · · Score: 1

    If ISPs sensor information then they become liable for all information that they transfer. If ISPs police information they go beyond their designated duty; Toyota has no obligation to file greivances against Toyota drivers that speed and DUI. I hope I'm interpretting the blurb right, karma.

    1. Re:The answer is simple. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not really the same argument. You are basically saying rifle companies don't have to be responsible for your firearm actions. ISPs aren't double sending your TCP packets to some alternate destination without you knowing.

      Though this whole ISP privacy article is silly cause no one abuse your info more than credit card companies.

    2. Re:The answer is simple. by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      I've seen this comment on Slashdot before but I seriously doubt that an ISP would become liable for everything just because they chose to block some things. Has anyone seen an actual example of an ISP or similar organization being held liable in a situation like this?

    3. Re:The answer is simple. by imstanny · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "You are basically saying rifle companies don't have to be responsible for your firearm actions."

      That's exactly what I'm saying.

    4. Re:The answer is simple. by imstanny · · Score: 1
      The reason that an ISP becomes liable for everything once it sensors something is because once it blocks content A,B,C it automatically says that content D-Z is 'acceptable'. And if the government finds that content F is somehow illegal, the ISP becomes liable for not filtering that as well.

      From the point of view of ISP, there is no incentive for them to take on the burden of policing the internet.

      (Aside from that, I want to note that I do not believe in any censorship, period, regardless of the source of censorship).

    5. Re:The answer is simple. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Which is why there are quite a few that block "un-needed" ports such as those commonly used by Kazaa et al. Because blocking a port for all users because it can be mis-used is OK, filtering a port for Filesharing traffic is censorship and they can then be required to filter port 80 for "inappropriate" content.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    6. Re:The answer is simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do if they break the law on their test track.

      Thats why they sue ISPs instead of computer manufacturers.

    7. Re:The answer is simple. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The easiest way to expliain it is to equate it with directing traffic.

      If you cause someone to have an accident when directing trafic, you are at fault or at minimum share in the responibility for that accident. Even if the accident could have been avioded but wasn't because you gave some one the right of way when someone else had it.

      ISPs assume this directing traffic role when they start forcibly filtering content. They are distinguishing who has the right of way and who doesn't. When they do this they can be responcible for laws violated because they gave the permision to do so.

      ISPs currently act like the little old lady at a four way stop sign who forgot what order to go in. They just sit there and wait for someone to tell them to go or wait until everyone else has went. By doing this she has probably caused an accident by confusing people around here but no direct action caused anyone to do anything in particular. When ISPs do this, they are waiting for someone else to act as the trafic controler so they are completley removed from the actions.

      Some laws provide for this security while even more are implied from court rulings based on simular circumstances. You wouldn't be liable if someone rented a house from you and ran a kiddy porn ring inside it, unless you told them it was ok to do so.

      The only question is how much liability or responcibility is imposed for what actions. When you allow file swapping but not drug sales, you are providing a place and might be just as liable as some of the P2P site or tracker sight that have recently got into trouble. If you turn a blind eye on all of it untill someone (with authority) tells you to make somethign stop, you have removed yourself from the mix.

    8. Re:The answer is simple. by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

      It honestly amazes me that people can hold the manufacturers of guns liable for the actions of what people do.

      Thats exactly like saying my wife is going to sue Dell because I used one of their computers to write some nasty virus... (just an example folks)

      Anyway, we're off topic as it is...

  6. Does anyone even know what their ISP policies are? by bergeron76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I assume this is the reason the response rate on this is so low. It's an intriguing question, though.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  7. HavenCo by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 0


    Try HavenCo, based in the principality of Sealand.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:HavenCo by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative

      HavenCo is not an ISP, they're a hosting/colo provider.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  8. I don't know about anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...but I'm wondering what lieumorrison is planning on doing that he thinks he needs his ISP to protect him.

    Kind'a like asking, "Can anyone recommend a good criminal lawyer? No reason, just asking."

    1. Re:I don't know about anyone else... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      ...but I'm wondering what lieumorrison is planning on doing that he thinks he needs his ISP to protect him.

      Hmmm, maybe ask Indymedia.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    2. Re:I don't know about anyone else... by secolactico · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does anybody know what is the age of consent for barnyard animals?

      No reason, just asking.

      --
      No sig
    3. Re: I don't know about anyone else... by JavaRob · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to ask is if they ever press charges.

      -Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy

      That's a good one...

    4. Re:I don't know about anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some old farmer in Wisconsin may be very interested in this. Seems he was 'doing' his neighbors cows in the middle of the nights when he drank a lot. He got caught on video security that the neighbor, also a farmer, put up when he heard unexplained noises at night. Dirty old coot got arrested and made the 'watercooler' section of 'foxnews.com'. That is how the rest of us got a good laugh too. Course I knew this old dog breeder lady who had her dogs breed her while she was breeding her dogs......back in Sacramento. Husband was a 'gold miner' and was always up in the hills panning for gold. Had strange kids that couple did.

  9. Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a by hords · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a sysadmin at an ISP in Oregon, UNICOM. We get requests all the time for customer information. Our policy is to only give out information if we receive a subpoena. If someone doesn't give this to us we tell them that we require it (I've personally told a police officer this who was trying to get info.) We get many emails and letters from RIAA and MPAA, but to my knowledge never anything that we provided customer information for. They send things to try to scare ISPs into providing info, but that tends to be it in my experience.

  10. Hurricane Electric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For what it's worth, Hurricane Electric allows customers to seed and track bittorrent files. I think this gives an indication that they are clueful, but I don't know much more about their policies.

    1. Re:Hurricane Electric by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think this gives an indication that they are clueful, but I don't know much more about their policies.

      I don't know that it means that they are "clueful", maybe they just don't care. I get a huge amount of spam, port scans, and out-right hack attempts from their IP blocks, and they don't seem to really care.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  11. Hmmm. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    Does anybody know what is the age of consent for barnyard animals?

    Doesn't seem to be one here in Washington State!

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  12. Verizon... but not for selfless reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Verizon has repeatedly blocked giving up subscriber information to the RIAA/MPAA, and they even beat them in court on the matter. However, it's not because Verizon loves you and wants to protect your rights. It's because doing the work of the RIAA/MPAA costs them money, and that's what's important to them.

    1. Re:Verizon... but not for selfless reasons by gregjmartin · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine the legal fees in fighting to the Federal Appeals Court would have saved verizon any money over just doing the work. My vote is with them. (I do recognize that Verizon didn't do this for any altruistic reasons though) \\Greg

    2. Re:Verizon... but not for selfless reasons by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the legal fees for half a dozen court cases wouldn't touch the cost of hiring more people to deal with the deluge of bogus requests for information which would ensue the moment a weak standard was set for requesting personal information tied to a particular IP.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  13. Hmm (might be a bit baised) by dariuscardren · · Score: 0

    I work for Armstrong Cable in Butler, PA, we don't give info of any sort, out w/o a court order I know, users or account info, we do have a relitivly styrick spam/virus policy though and will turn off outgoing mail if we get complaint on an IP address, though that info dosne't leave our building unless the customer them self calls in.

    1. Re:Hmm (might be a bit baised) by rakslice · · Score: 1

      >and will turn off outgoing mail if we get complaint on an IP address, though that info dosne't leave our building unless the customer them self calls in.

      What? They stop customers' outgoing mail just based on a complaint?

      And why wouldn't they notify the customer? Isn't that risky?

      I mean, even if it's a complaint about real spam, _and_ the complainant gives you authentic message headers, _and_ you make sure that all the mail relays are legit, there's still a possibility that you make a mistake (say, one of the relays is compromised and the owner didn't know, or there's a mistake looking up the address records, etc), and you stop mail for an innocent customer.

      And, if I remember correctly, some businesses have already won lawsuits against their ISPs to recover for lost business when their outgoing e-mail was stopped without cause or notice.

      And viruses are a whole different ballgame, since they're almost always sending themselves without knowledge of the customer; It _really_ doesn't make sense not to notify them then.

      And as a bare minimum, if they really want that policy, at least don't let the public know about it, for your customers' sake...

      *looks around*

      Ahem... I mean: What was your abuse e-mail address again? ;)

      -AT

    2. Re:Hmm (might be a bit baised) by dariuscardren · · Score: 0

      We don't turn off businesses we turn off residentual customers (and some take YEARS to find out)

  14. verizon by ikeleib · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would be Verizon that went to bat with RIAA all the way to Federal Appeals Court. They tried to go all the way, but were denied hearing.

    http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/opin ion-20031219.pdf

  15. xs4all by splortnik2003 · · Score: 4, Informative
    i think http://www.xs4all.nl/uk/index.php is pretty much exactly what you're looking for.

    unfortunately in holland, so not sure how useful this is to you.

    but they're basically an out of control, customer privacy respecting and defending, scientology-document-hosting, barrel of isp goodness. (more.) i wish i lived in holland so i could give them my connectivity money.

    1. Re:xs4all by fatquack · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a happy customer of them for ten years I can say that the parent is completely right.
      They even sued the state about the costs for the tapping of customers and are working with the EDRI against the EU data retention plans.
      There is also the long running Scientology courtcase against them.
      Like someone there said: "We would not even give the time of the day to a law enforcement agency without a court order."

    2. Re:xs4all by owlstead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And they sued a dutch spammer into oblivion, tried to get cable providers to open up to other ISP's, held a conference on their 10th year on copyright issues, put some money into bits of freedom, have a large anonymous ftp server with goodies for all, provide IPv6 services... Lets just say they are on the good side. They do put letters from the Dutch RIAA through to their customers though. Anonymously, of course :)

      This is not that strange, since they have sprung from a now defunct hacker magazine called hacktic. more information here

    3. Re:xs4all by lga · · Score: 1

      I highly recommend xs4all - I used them when I spent six months in Amsterdam in 2003. As well as respecting rights they are also very techy-friendly, providing all sorts of new and experimental technology. They're probably the only Dutch ISP with a decent english translation of their website!

      --
      A latent existence
    4. Re:xs4all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it. I'm moving to Holland.

  16. Privacy Policies by slughead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lot of ISPs' privacy policies state that they wont give out your personal information with anything short of a warrant.

    With the FBI basically writing their own warrants now, it's put them in an awkward legal position.

    The best part is: even before the patriot II (which passed, see above link), ISPs could be charged with obstruction of justice for not giving the FBI what they ask for in unofficial terms.

    Speaking as someone who was tracked down in such a way over a MISDEMENOR (dismissed, thank God), I can say that this affects us all. I'm very proud to say that a grand jury was assembled and a warrant had to be issued before Cox gave the information up. This was after Patriot I, however, it was BEFORE Patriot II.

    Nowadays.. well ...

    --
    Latewire
  17. Re:PDF Warning by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

    Glad you asked. Lately PDF's have been crashing my browser or just making it hang for up to 5 minutes. Sometimes I'll click on one by accident and goodbye 20 other open tabs I had! Kind of like a landmine really. I'm guessing some adobe or Firefox update put me in this mess.

    I'd be interested to hear others experiences/solutions on this topic.

  18. XPDF in unix is SO nice :) by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't have issues with "adobe updates"... oh did I say that to windows users again?

    Yeah... its nice to not be running that cpu hog. (well, both of them, windows and adobe acrobat)

    Later.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    1. Re:XPDF in unix is SO nice :) by Fareq · · Score: 1

      Please, compared to adobe acrobat, windows is a damn *lean* piece of software!

  19. XS4All, Netherlands by mpieters · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Dutch ISP XS4All has a very long history of both active and pro-active defense of their customer rights. It is currently leading an international petition against the EU plans for data retention, for example. It also started case against the Dutch government over wiretapping.

    In the past it has on a regular bases stood up to defend their customer rights, including a long running spat against the Church of Scientology and a case of freedom of expression even if it is about derailing German trains.

    Last but not least XS4All actively sues spammers (sorry, Dutch only).

    --
    "The truth shall make ye fret" -- The Truth, Terry Pratchett
  20. About Common Carrier status by arete · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not a lawyer, but here's the very rough deal:
    Someone who is transmitting information as a "common carrier" isn't responsible for that content under very broad rules.

    Someone who ISN'T a common carrier still isn't automatically responsible. There's lots of ways to NOT be liable, but this is one especially broad and reliable kind of protection and companies don't want to give it up.

    1. A _hosting_ company can make whatever AUP they want, and they can enforce it; they aren't acting as a common carrier anyway. A hosting company can always be liable for what they're hosting (to some extent, after they know)

    2. An _access_ company is protected by common carrier rules. So if your DSL provider prevents you from seeing certain sites then they become somewhat liable for all the content passed over their lines.

    It doesn't count if the filtering is optional (most family-friendly) or if it is technical (most kinds of AV protection; anything supposedly to keep bandwidth down.)

    So there's a narrow techincal distinction in there somewhere, but the rough idea is that people who are _bandwidth_ providers don't want to stop you from accessing something based on content, because it reduces their protection.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  21. Earthlink by parasonic · · Score: 0

    About four and five years ago, the FBI wanted access to Earthlink's system. They were trying to install Carnivore, and Earthlink said no to this on the basis of system integrety and users' privacy rights. Eventually, Earthlink lost out, but they definitely tried to hold the feds out, even when the FBI came a few days after the terrorist attacks.

    A HALF-decent source

    1. Re:Earthlink by symbolic · · Score: 1


      Hm...maybe I should switch to another provider. With carnivore installed, they don't need to provide anything- the fed will just take what they want.

  22. Shaw Cable by space_biker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shaw Cable, based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is well known for supporting customer privacy:

    http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E51 -A3CB-1C29D914023B/0/ProtectionofInternetPrivacy.p df&ei=z5wEQ663Fb6sYeGhgOQI(pdf)

    1. Re:Shaw Cable by space_biker · · Score: 1

      Ok...real links this time (pdfs):

      http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E51 -A3CB-1C29D914023B/0/ProtectionofInternetPrivacy.p df

      http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/529CAF5B-2594-4FA6 -B45E-27B19D2959BC/0/CustomerPrivacyMediaApril2520 05.pdf

  23. It's all about covering your back end. by bryanporter · · Score: 1

    ISP's that I've worked for in the past have all had the same policy - no customer records are delivered to any law enforcement or governmental agency without an appropriate subpoena. In the presence of a subpoena, however, they've all turned over the appropriate records. Granted, an ISP can fight these subpoenas, but that would be an enormous legal burden - and why should an ISP subsidize a customers legal problems?

    1. Re:It's all about covering your back end. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      1) It is NOT a custumoer's legal "problem" until a court case/lawsuit has been filed and the customer notified. Until that time you need to repharse that statement as "why should an ISP subsidize protecting a customer's legal rights.

      2) And that statement answers itself, because they are their CUSTOMERS, and as such should take reasonable steps to protect their customer's property. If you drop your clothing off at a Dry cleaner that dry cleaner is resonsible if someone comes and takes that clothing, even if it is someone claiming to be a cop. As such, that Dry cleaner should take reasonable steps to make sure that the people taking the clothing have the proper paperwork to make it truly legl, not just a piece of subpoena that the holder claims makes it legal. Otherwise, the Customer, who paid them, has the right to sue them. Same thing with the ISP. By accepting my money, they are legally bound to take reasonable steps to protect my priviticy, if they don't, I can sue.

      2) It costs them cash to provide that information. Often, a lot of it.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:It's all about covering your back end. by bryanporter · · Score: 1

      I agree that an ISP (or any corporation for that matter) should take reasonable steps to protect a customers privacy, and I concur that negligence in that arena would probably be grounds to sue.

      I do not agree, however, that a corporate entity has the responsibility to refuse to comply with a subpoena in order to protect its customers' right to privacy - accept in remarkable circumstances. Case in point, Verizon refusing to turn over records to the RIAA; those subpoenas were issued directly by the RIAA, as you recall, and were issued under a portion of a law that was later ruled unconstitutional (if memory serves).

      Most subpoenas, however, have been issued and vetted by a judge, which, according to our legal systems, gives them the full force of law. Why would you expect any corporate entity to go to the lengthy and expensive process of combatting every subpoena they might receive, when those subpoenas have been reviewed by individuals closely associated with the case in question? Additionally, what if the information delivered in fulfillment of subpoena actually exonerated the customer of any wrongdoing? Would you disagree with it then?

      You seem to forget that we actually have a functioning democracy in this country, and while abuses of the laws do exist (DMCA, for instance, RIAA subpoenas, for another), for the most part the system works pretty darn well.

      Also, you might want to read the Wikipedia entry on Subpoena.

  24. Anything but Videotron by taylortbb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the major Canadian ISPs (except Videotron) fought the CRIA when they attempted to sue filsharers, and they won. Even Rogers who has other media investments (TV studios, etc.) fought the CRIA.

    My current ISP (Rogers) I've had good service with (very fast), except for the 60GB/month bandwidth cap they just put in place.

  25. China Telecom and Brazil telesp? by Intron · · Score: 1

    They won't listen to complaints of any kind.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  26. In Canada, it's different by Mr.Fork · · Score: 1

    Canada's privacy laws prevent my ISP from giving out any personally identifiable information. If they did, I have every right to sue, and then the ISP would be subject to penalties, even loss of license to provide ISP services. On top of that, the RCMP might lay charges.

    In other words, ISP's are more scared of the government slamming them than RIAA.

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
    1. Re:In Canada, it's different by bleaknik · · Score: 1

      AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE!

      Seriously, though. The RIAA has no business monitoring who downloads what to the who now, but they get away with it because of all the political lobbying that transpires here in the United States.

      Time to move to Canada.

      --
      Deja Vu
      n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
  27. Speakeasy. by Telastyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    They likely won't fight a warrant, and I would be doubtful they'd fight a plausible cease and desist; but I know they won't crack down themselves on hosts running servers, pegging bandwidth for p2p stuff, or otherwise using the service provided. And they're not going to resell my contact info.

    Unfortunately, that's leaps and bounds above any other American ISP I've encountered.

    1. Re:Speakeasy. by farble1670 · · Score: 1
      i was with speakeasy for 4+ years. in response to C&D orders, they give warnings, and will ultimately terminate your service. i got around 4 C&D orders. my service was never terminated, but they did threaten to do so.

      to be fair, they were pretty nice about it ... probably not any more or less than any other US based ISP. speakeasy is an excellent ISP overall.

  28. Re:PDF Warning by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

    Use Ghostscript and GSView instead. It loads faster and is GPL.

  29. Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is both good and bad.
    We had a former employee that we believe was reading other peoples email. I had a log of an IP address from his ISP checking our CEOs mailbox. He was not employed with us at that time. I asked the ISP if it was him and sent the logs but they would not tell us or do anything about it with out subpoena.
    Here is the problem. This is a criminal act. We did not want him to go to jail we just wanted him to stop and to let him know we caught him. He has a wife and a kid and putting him in jail wouldn't have helped anyone.
    Instead we just changed all our passwords.
    Sometimes not going through the courts can be a kindness and not evil.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  30. Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like your problem is not the ISP but the fact that you have crap termination policies and your IT department (and CEO) is security challenged. You think the rest of the world should lower there privacy standards because you cant get a handle on security? Don't tell me, MCSE?

  31. How does port-blocking affect ISPs by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If an ISP blocks a port, such as the ports used by IRC, obstensibly for technical reasons but it's obvious to everyone they are doing it because BIGNUM% of such traffic is unwanted, e.g. piracy or p0rn, then are they still a common carrier?

    What if they do it to prevent network harm and it's generally regarded as Doing The Right Thing, like blocking incoming NETBIOS ports or restricting outgoing port 25?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:How does port-blocking affect ISPs by arete · · Score: 1

      To my understanding, blocking any ports isn't considered blocking based on _content_ which is what puts you at risk of losing common carrier protection.

      I believe it would probably even be ok to block any website IP that had more than "X" traffic - as long as you did it consistently.

      --
      Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  32. Re:PDF Warning by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

    I'd rip and reinstall Adobe, but if that doesn't help - FireFox has a PDF extension that will popup every time you click on one. PDF Extension Details

  33. Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a by pen · · Score: 1
    A few questions:
    • If he was no longer employed with you, why did he know your CEO's e-mail password? This breaks down into two parts: Why did he know the password in the first place, and why wasn't it changed when he left?
    • You mentioned that you "instead just changed all your passwords". Is this not standard procedure after a security breach at your company? Would you have omitted changing everyone's password if you chose to go after this individual and have him put in jail?
    • Could you please let us know what company you work for so that we know to never trust them with any important data?
  34. Offshore hosts and offshore proxies by some1somewhere · · Score: 1
    There are a few things you can do if you want to protect your privacy as much as you can.

    You could get a offshore dedicated server and put a proxy on it (and possibly any data you want to have offshore for tax, privacy, or even backup/redundancy reasons). This way, your web browsing and others would only trace back to the proxy.

    If you're only looking to put data offshore and privacy, just go for a offshore web hosting account.

    You could also simply do a search on Google for offshore servers and you'd come up with a bunch of hits.

    Hope that provides some insight!

    --
    **FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS :- http://tinyurl.com/la6fhd
  35. if you're in houston by jbridge21 · · Score: 1

    oplink has been very helpful with forwarding complaint letters to me instead of cutting me off, and you can run whatever servers you like too.

  36. Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    My boss was stupid enough to trust this guy with his email password.
    He had this guy set up his home system to pull his email.
    Yes changing all the passwords was SOP when we have a security breach.
    And do not worry. Our CEO doesn't have any Important passwords to things like the accounting system.
    He is not that dumb.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  37. Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah the CEO is security challenged. And it was the IT department that found the intrusion. It was more difficult since our CEO and the former employee where on the same ISP. We noticed that the mail box was being accessed while he was in the office.
    As to the termination policy maybe. The guy left on what we thought where good terms and our CEO hired him to do some work on his home network. They guy got the password to the email account their and then started to read the CEOs email.
    Maybe we should have pressed charges. And no I do not have no stinking MCSE.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  38. SNM by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 0

    SNM
    Not so cheap, but not so expensive either.

  39. Really? UPenn was awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    University of Pennsylvania (we're the people wearing the "Not Penn State" shirts) got hit up by the RIAA YEARS and years ago in the very FIRST wave of requests because we sat on a slew of fiber lines and main internet hubs (mostly for the research institutions) and most dorm rooms, labs and classroom had true 100MB connection. Ungodly transfer rates between dorm rooms on opposite ends of campus. Add to that the Microsoft Network Filesharing.....unless you had a FAST machine it wasn't worth browsing the network unless you wanted to wait 30 minutes while it found all the movies, games and textbooks out there. Too bad the entry fee is $35K/year.

    So, we got hit early.....there was only one letter exchanged that we all saw....amounted to "who has more money and more lawyers?" RIAA dropped the issue. Guess going after one of the nation's most prestegious law schools that just happens to have a VERY large war chest (you should SEE some of the funds that the place has and is just letting accumulate interest) wasn't their cup of tea (imagine thousands of law/graduate students/faculty pouring through research and preparing briefs).

    RIAA is all huff and no teeth, suing 10 year olds to scare people....

  40. My experience... by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 1
    I was hosting some "consumer advocacy" content that earned the animosity of some of the companies that were on my "hall of shame".

    I had a lot of problems hosting my content. The lawyers from the companies sent threatening letters to the ISPs and they would drop my site. It didn't matter that the CDA held them non liable, etc -- they just didn't want to deal with anything have to do with lawyers.

    Eventually I found Brand X Internet. They were recently in the news on Slashdot (they were the small ISP that took up the cause of smaller DSL providers to the supreme court and lost). Working with Brand X was a breath of fresh air!

    --
    Evolution: love it or leave it
  41. Re:PDF Warning by rakslice · · Score: 1

    The first thing I do when I install Acrobat on a system with Firefox is to fire it up and go
    to Tools->Options->Downloads->Plugins and shut the PDF plugin off so that PDFs open in the (bloated yet stable) standalone app, instead of in the unstable browser plugin.