GB <
[email protected]> wrote in
message news:
[email protected]...
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> GB <[email protected]> wrote
>>> There is a growing advocacy in IT circles towards
>>> the active withdrawal of service and/or punishment
>>> of individuals who practice what you two advocate.
>> Only by fools who havent got a clue about the law.
> Er, yup, that pretty much sums up the
> vast majority of those working in IT.
You in spades.
>>> Many Universities, particularly in the
>>> US, already implement such actions.
>> Separate issue entirely to whats legally possible with
>> customers who have paid for their net connection.
> So Australian law considers ISPs to be proper
> 'telecommunications providers' now?
The technical term is actually carriage service
providers as far as the legislation is concerned.
And that stuff is mostly provisions of the trade
practices act, not the telecoms act anyway.
> Kinda moves the goal posts, yeah.
Nope, thats been the law in this country for decades now.
> What about the likes of AOL and Compu$erve, those who go to great
> lengths to imply that what they're giving you is not 'The Internet'?
Completely irrelevant whether its 'The Internet' or not.
>> And anyone with a clue would realise that that sort
>> of activity is completely illegal when done by the ISP.
> Doesn't make it a bad idea tho
Corse it does. Its a stupid and totally impractical approach.
> Is it actually 'completely illegal',
Yep, completely illegal.
> or are you exaggerating as far in the libetarian side
Nope, I'm rubbing your nose in what the law doesnt allow.
> as I am in the authorotarian just to prove a point, or do ISPs really
> have no control over what their customers do on their networks?
As long as their customer isnt doing anything illegal themselves,
the ISP gets no say on how they choose to operate their PCs.
In spades with what was being discussed,
running virus checkers etc on their PC etc.
>> And any ISP stupid enough to try that would end up
>> with its guts for garters when its stupid enough to try
>> that with a paying customer who has a clue about the law.
> Depends what the customer bought, right?
Nope.
> Can I put a variation on the old "Not a common carrier" in my TOS,
Doesnt change a thing. You are or you aint, doesnt matter a
damn what the TOS says about that, and pulling the plug on
the service the customer has paid for just because they dont
run a virus checker doesnt have a damned thing to do with
whether the ISP is or is not a common carrier anyway.
> combine that with a requirement to do basic common sense
> things like scan for virii and worms, and patch windows
> holes, and block bad ports as a condition of supply?
Not legal.
The most they can do legally is TEMPORARILY stop
you from using their service if they can PROVE that
your system is infected and is causing a problem for
their service as a result of that infection. And they have
to allow the user to use the service they have paid for
once they have fixed the problem too.
And they certainly cannot ever 'punish' anyone.
> All very pie in the sky of course,
> never gonna happen, blah-di-blah.
You were the one stupid enough to
advocate that completely illegal approach.
>>> It's a good system.
>> Completely impractical and ILLEGAL for an ISP.
> Yup, but it's a good system.
****. Jackbooted thuggery is never a good system.
>>> I think that the hefty fines that some advocate
>>> are a little over-the-top, but withdrawal of network
>>> and/or Internet service pending compliance is
>>> certainly an excellent approach in my view.
>> More fool you.
> Geez, I tone it down for the audience,
> and you still give me a hard time.
You spew mindless ****, you get an appropriate response.
> What I *really* want is physical violence. 'The beatings
> will cease when the cluelessness abates' type stuff
Gone blind yet ?
>> The law prevents jackbooted thugs like you
>> from behaving like that with commercial services.
> Giz examples Rod. Not having a go, genuinely interested.
Read the trade practices act or the ACCC's
pdf that summarises some bits of it.
> I understand that the commecial practicalities of implementing
> such a thing are, well, not. Not so clued on the legal angle though...
Consumer rights are a bit hard to summarise in a sentance or two.
>>> In my view, you're perfectly welcome to operate your
>>> flawed configurations, with your fundamentally flawed
>>> practices in the comfort and privacy of your own network.
>> Your view is completely and utterly irrelevant.
> Flushed where I belong then?
Yep.
>>> By all means, unplug your network from the 'net now,
>>> and continue with your heads jammed in the sand, but
>>> for $diety's sake, stop advocating (and bragging about)
>>> such fundamentally stupid and irresponsible behaviour.
>> True of you in spades.
> I try my best
It aint good enough. Do the decent thing and top yourself forthwith.