NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: ISPs and the "Secret Service"
First the term "forged packet" has a technical meaning. If we can't use
terms like that then we can't have a discussion.
I don't want to argue the policy of blocking port 25 on this list but I will
challenge the presumption that that is excusable because it would be what I
would want if only I were smart enough to know my own self-interest.
IANAL but considering the many violations of terms of service the carriers
dare not prosecute I'd be surprised if they would be so foolish as to bring
suit on such an issue. It would go very far towards increasing the press
coverage of these issues.
[ OK, we definitely know the positions on this topic.
This thread is closed.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+bob19-0501=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+bob19-0501=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf
Of Brett Glass
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:26
To: Lauren Weinstein; Roy J. Tellason
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org; lauren@vortex.com
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: ISPs and the "Secret Service"
At 07:24 PM 11/27/2007, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>This is why plain language analysis will be important to make the
>data generally useful outside of the technical community.
If this is done, I certainly hope that *unbiased* plain language will
be used -- avoiding prejdicial terms such as "forged packets,"
"sabotage," and others which have been used in this forum to describe
best practices currently used by ISPs. Otherwise, you will be at serious
risk of legal action for defamation, tortious interference with business
relationships, trade libel, and similar torts. Especially since many
such practices, such as blocking port 25 and caching, are used to
*improve* the user's experience. To state otherwise would be misleading.
--Brett Glass, LARIAT.NET