Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast May Face Lawsuits Over BitTorrent Filtering

Posted by Zonk on from the you-have-made-the-intertubes-cranky dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It's been widely reported that Comcast is engaged in a sneaky form of Internet filtering. The company is terminating its customers' BitTorrent sessions by sending misleading data onto the network. The end result is that instead of targeting key heavy users, Comcast is instead engaged in an all out war against P2P protocols. In an interview with CNET, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann states that Comcast is 'throwing a spanner in the works of the Internet, hoping that this will somehow reduce bandwidth usage overall.' Other lawyers seem to have smelled blood, and are circling in the water. Lohmann reveals that '[The EFF has] already been contacted by attorneys who are considering legal action against Comcast.' Could Comcast be facing a class-action?"

8 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Comcast by jcicora · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally I hope they do get sued. While I do think our society is overly litigous, and Comcast does have the right to modify traffic on the network they own, I don't think they have the right to lie or mislead about it. And isn't this the same Comcast who had the unlimited plan with bandwidth caps?

    1. Re:Comcast by UncleTogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Comcast does have the right to modify traffic on the network they own

      Really? Where does it end? Modifying emails because they disapprove of the content? What if your cell phone company monitored your phone conversations, and bleeped out words they didn't like?

      This is obnoxious on so many levels it's not even funny...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    2. Re:Comcast by coaxial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Court issued writs and warrants do not requestion permission! You are compelled to comply. There is nothing optional about them.

      2. Property rights are not, and never have been, absolute rights. I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to.

      3. Comcast is a government blessed monopoly in many cases. Therefore, their behavior is even more limited since they must "act in the public interest."

      4. Comcast likes to enjoy the legal protections of being a "common carrier" (i.e a dumb pipe). This behavior shows that they are not a dumb pipe at all. Once a provider starts manipulating the traffic flowing across their network, they lose common carrier status, and are now responsible for ALL the traffic on their network.

      5. They are forging packets. This is a computer crime. ("knowingly cause[] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer", where "damage is "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information." and "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value.") While you may not be able to say that any one computer was "damaged" in excess of $5,000, the entire network was affected, and that is certainly more than $5,000.

      6. They are deciptively advertising their serves as "unlimited" when it clearly is "limited."

      7. While not related here, you should know, that just because a legal "agreement" says something, doesn't make it legal. Case in point: The indemnity clause at ski resorts that say "If our ski lift collapses, you can't sue." Bullshit. You can, as there is a clear public interest in not having deathtrap ski lifts.

  2. It would be nice.... by 8127972 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..... If an actual lawyer could comment on the possibility of any sort of lawsuit. While the article does reference this, it isn't clear if this could be done on a federal scale. That leaves the whole issue of a potential class action lawsuit up in the air IMHO.

    Having said that, I hope it scares the crap out of Comcast (and any other ISP dumb enough to try this).

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  3. Re:I don't know by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comcast has 1.) advertised full-function internet service 2.) contracted with municipalities to provide that service to residents. Sending out spoofed packets to disrupt users internet usage simply isn't reasonable behavior for a company claiming to provide internet service.

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  4. Re:ZOMG!! Squeal!! by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    World of Warcraft users who are trying to get the latest patch, for example?

  5. What would be the point? (WAS: Sue them) by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lawyers walk away with millions. Subscribers gets five dollars off their next bill. Comcast pass the cost to their subscribers. The douche bag decision makers in comcast are still employed, moving onto their next (evil) scheme. There is ZERO accountability here. Now if we start talking about PRISON term or heavy financial fines for the said douche...

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  6. Re:One should hope so by profquad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and could choose to sign up with a service that doesn't do so

    Lucky.