[ NNSquad ] Re: Google Hijacked -- Major ISP to Intercept and Modify Web Pages

[Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>]

> I disagree. If you look at Lauren's screen shot, they did not change
> a word of Google's page. They merely added their own message at the
> top. This is commonly done by TV stations, and no one has asserted
> after lo these many years that it is any sort of violation of
> copyright or that the station doesn't have a right to do it. 

First, the fact that "words weren't changed" (how nice of Rogers!)
is not the issue.  The presentation of a Web page is a total user
experience, and for an ISP to insert themselves into that process
can't be anything but extremely problematic, particularly with
paying subscribers (I am willing to consider some limited exceptions
in the case of free access services and the like, but even then the
risks associated with such insertions are formidable to say the
least).

And even more to the point, where does it end?  It's clear from the
equipment manufacturers that universal access to subscribers "no
matter where they browse" for ad and promotional insertions is the
end game, without the cooperation of either their subscribers or the
Web sites those subscribers are using.  

Commercial ISPs are in a unique position since they provide the
conduits through which *all* user Net access typically takes place.

Just as the Internet community came down hard on VeriSign's "Site
Finder" DNS diversion service (and to a lesser degree, Verizon when
they played a similar stunt recently), it is quite reasonable to
look very skeptically at ISPs trying to leverage their control over
Internet access by actively modifying the viewable content of Web
pages.

As for his television analogy, Brett is simply wrong.  Apparently he
isn't aware that in both the commercial television and radio worlds,
such activities are virtually always subject to specific contractual
agreements, and that ad hoc attempts to avoid such agreements are a
litigation funhouse.  

Common carrier considerations are probably not a key issue in this
immediate context, except to the extent that ISPs continue to play
fast and loose this way, they are increasingly likely to find
themselves saddled with common carrier status down the line, in my
opinion.

Bob suggested that this behavior was like scribbling on the outside
of a magazine.  I'll offer an alternate USPS analogy.  It's like
receiving a letter, but learning that the postal service had opened
the envelope, noted the contents for commercially exploitive
tracking purposes, stuffed in some additional materials of their
own, resealed the envelope, and *then* delivered it.

I wonder how that would go over with the public at large?

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator