Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Known for Defending Their Customer's Rights?
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)"
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.
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.
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.
Technically not an ISP as such, but they definitely provide internet connectivity.t 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)
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=ht
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.
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.
HavenCo is not an ISP, they're a hosting/colo provider.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Does anybody know what is the age of consent for barnyard animals?
No reason, just asking.
No sig
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
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.
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.
n ion-20031219.pdf
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/opi
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.
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.
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
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...
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
That's exactly what I'm saying.
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
Shaw Cable, based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is well known for supporting customer privacy:
1 -A3CB-1C29D914023B/0/ProtectionofInternetPrivacy.p df&ei=z5wEQ663Fb6sYeGhgOQI(pdf)
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E5
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.
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.
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.
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.