nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 26 Apr 2019 21:00:41 -0400
In article <44a32613-a255-44eb-a094-cee68b6d088a@Spark> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=- particularly "interesting" when someone downloads CP (or, as it now seems to be called, CSAM) using their ipaddr and causes them to become a Person of Interest.
I was thinking the same thing, that'll do it. Or maybe videos showing how to behead members of religious or cultural groups against whom someone holds a grudge.
Current thread:
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?, (continued)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Ross Tajvar (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mark Seiden (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? John Levine (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
