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

["Dan Doyle" <dan.c.doyle@gmail.com>]

Isn't this a simple copyright issue? To me, it really boils down to
the fact that a web page is authored content and unless you have the
right to modify the original work, you are violating copyright.
Injecting your own content into a web page requires modifying the HTML
document, not adding, not supplementing, but modifying the original
work. Copyright covers all the markup, CSS, and JS. I believe
copyright lasts years before material moves to public domain. Disney
is expert at this issue. So, to return to the parcel examples, it is
not merely inserting additional advertising into your envelope, it is
to change your items in such a way that when you use them, they sqwack
advertising. That is pretty invasive.

One other point on a response to how do ISPs inform a user when there
is a line blockage, etc, sending something to a browser is pointless.
Your perspective is a bit myopic. There are tons of applications that
use TCP/IP that are also affected by network health issues aside from
browsers. If the network is suffering, than all applications that use
TCP/IP should be informed as to the trouble. The problem with network
health issues is when ISPs use these signals to affect the health of
their bottom line and not the health of the network. Sending a TCP RST
for no reason aside from a decision made by someone in your company
for whatever jacky logic is capricious. Sending a TCP RST because the
network is down is not.

Dan



On Dec 10, 2007 10:26 AM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Robb Topolski wrote:
> > Allow me to disagree, as there are plenty of messages available for use.
> >
> > > The post office adds stamp to letters with all sorts of messages about
> > > postage due,
> >
> > ICMP TTL or timer expired enroute -- or whatever mechanism currently
> > used to notify users of bills due
>
> Then someone would complain that ISPs broke traceroute by "hijacking" TTL
> expired for billing problems.
>
>
> > > return to sender,
> >
> > ICMP no route to host
>
> Application and IP stack programmers seem to ignore these messages and
> don't show them to the user.
>
> Instead of framing the message in the same window such as the Google
> cache does showing archived pages (google also modifies the page with
> "highlighting")
>
> <http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:W5f1MsHEF5cJ:lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad+nnsquad&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us>
>
> would it be better to pop-up a separate window.  However, many applications
> have "pop-up blockers" so the user will never see the message.
>
>
> > > The telephone system has
> > > multiple types of busy signals
> >
> > TCP RST in response to SYN
>
> People complained that the network sent the TCP RST instead of the remote
> host. Isn't that exactly the problem that lead to the creation of this
> forum?  It swings back and forth, someone always complains and suggests
> exactly the solution that someone else complained about previously.
>
> Should ISPs be allowed to send TCP RST much like a "all circuits are
> busy--please try you call later signal?"  Should host programmers respond
> to ICMP Source Quench instead of ignoring it as most hosts do now?
>
>
> Application programmers tend to abuse the standards process just as much
> as network programmers abuse the standards process, not implementing the
> full standards, deliberately breaking parts of the standards, or just
> deciding some of those messages are "ugly" and either don't show them
> to the user or replace the error message with a "friendly" message which
> hides the real information.
>
> Can an application programmer violate network neutrality by ignoring
> network standards?  Should this group be looking for those problems too?
>
>                [ Note that Google's banner, etc. on "cached version"
>                  pages is totally appropriate.  These are
>                  Google-cached pages being served by Google that may
>                  not even be up to date (and are only displayed if
>                  the user selects Cached page versions).  Whether
>                  that caching occurs at all is under Web sites'
>                  control via the appropriate directives.  It would be
>                  irresponsible if Google did not display such cached
>                  pages in a manner that made their status completely
>                  clear.  This is utterly different from an ISP
>                  modifying the displayed data coming to a user
>                  directly from another Web site.
>
>                                         -- Lauren Weinstein
>                                            NNSquad Moderator ]
>
>
>
>
>
>