ISPs Known for Defending Their Customer's Rights? 85
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)"
Speakeasy.net (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:5, Insightful)
If google were to be an ISP, they should buy Speakeasy, since it would go well with their "Do no evil" mantra.
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:1)
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 ca
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:2)
http://farmersreallysucks.com/ [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
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:1)
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?
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:1)
The thing is that the above isn't very common!
Re:Speakeasy.net (Score:2)
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
Videotron in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Videotron in Canada (Score:1)
Re:Videotron in Canada (Score:1)
Re:Videotron in Canada (Score:1)
Re:Videotron in Canada (Score:1)
http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-a
Costumers? (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't an ISP protect its customers. Or maybe they really like their costumes.
Not Johns Hopkins University (Score:2, Interesting)
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 [google.com] for one affadavit.
Re:PDF Warning (Score:1)
I'd be interested to hear others experiences/solutions on this topic.
Re:XPDF in unix is SO nice :) (Score:2)
Re:PDF Warning (Score:2)
Re:PDF Warning (Score:2)
Re:PDF Warning (Score:2)
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.
Really? UPenn was awesome (Score:1)
The answer is simple. (Score:1)
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Though this whole ISP privacy article is silly cause no one abuse your info more than credit card companies.
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:2)
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...
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:2)
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:1)
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
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:1)
About Common Carrier status (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
How does port-blocking affect ISPs (Score:1)
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?
Re:How does port-blocking affect ISPs (Score:2)
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.
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Does anyone even know what their ISP policies are? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a (Score:2)
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 p
Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone even know what their ISP policies a (Score:2)
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.
HavenCo (Score:1)
Try HavenCo [havenco.com], based in the principality of Sealand. [sealandgov.com]
Re:HavenCo (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't know about anyone else... (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe ask Indymedia. [slashdot.org]
Re:I don't know about anyone else... (Score:3, Funny)
No reason, just asking.
Hmmm. (Score:2)
Doesn't seem to be one here in Washington State! [mathaba.net]
Re: I don't know about anyone else... (Score:3, Funny)
-Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy
That's a good one...
Re:Hurricane Electric (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Verizon... but not for selfless reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Verizon... but not for selfless reasons (Score:1)
Re:Verizon... but not for selfless reasons (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (might be a bit baised) (Score:2)
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 o
verizon (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/opi
xs4all (Score:4, Informative)
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. [xs4all.nl]) i wish i lived in holland so i could give them my connectivity money.
Re:xs4all (Score:5, Informative)
They even sued the state about the costs for the tapping of customers [xs4all.nl] and are working with the EDRI against the EU data retention plans. [xs4all.nl]
There is also the long running Scientology courtcase [xs4all.nl] 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."
Re:xs4all (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not that strange, since they have sprung from a now defunct hacker magazine called hacktic. more information here [wikipedia.org]
Re:xs4all (Score:2)
Privacy Policies (Score:5, Interesting)
With the FBI basically writing their own warrants [cato.org] 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
XS4All, Netherlands (Score:4, Interesting)
The Dutch ISP XS4All [xs4all.nl] 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 [dataretent...lution.com], for example. It also started case against the Dutch government over wiretapping [xs4all.nl].
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 [spaink.net] and a case of freedom of expression even if it is about derailing German trains [xs4all.nl].
Last but not least XS4All actively sues spammers (sorry, Dutch only) [frontpage.fok.nl].
Re:Earthlink (Score:2)
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.
Shaw Cable (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E5
Re:Shaw Cable (Score:1)
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4279F65-EE08-4E51 -A3CB-1C29D914023B/0/ProtectionofInternetPrivacy.p df [www.shaw.ca]
http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/529CAF5B-2594-4FA6 -B45E-27B19D2959BC/0/CustomerPrivacyMediaApril2520 05.pdf [www.shaw.ca]
It's all about covering your back end. (Score:1)
Re:It's all about covering your back end. (Score:2)
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, eve
Re:It's all about covering your back end. (Score:1)
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 y
Anything but Videotron (Score:3, Insightful)
My current ISP (Rogers) I've had good service with (very fast), except for the 60GB/month bandwidth cap they just put in place.
China Telecom and Brazil telesp? (Score:2)
In Canada, it's different (Score:1)
In other words, ISP's are more scared of the government slamming them than RIAA.
Re:In Canada, it's different (Score:1)
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.
Speakeasy. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, that's leaps and bounds above any other American ISP I've encountered.
Re:Speakeasy. (Score:1)
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.
Offshore hosts and offshore proxies (Score:1)
You could get a offshore dedicated server [zentek-international.com] 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 [zentek-international.com] account.
You could also simply do a search on Google for offshore servers [google.com] and you'd c
if you're in houston (Score:2)
My experience... (Score:2)
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 [brandx.net]. They were recently in the news on Slashdot (they were the small ISP that