NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Liability issues in ISP-injected ad systems?


In discussions of ISP injections of messages and ads into
third-party data streams (Rogers has now gone live with injected
messages in Canada), most of the analysis so far has been focused on
copyright issues (modifying the totality of how content provider
pages appear to users), and in the case of systems like Phorm, a
range of stunningly obvious privacy concerns.

However, the new revelations of security holes introduced by
ISP-operated DNS diversion systems brings the issue of liability
front and center.

To the extent that ISPs actually inject (for example) new ads into
the content streams being sent to users by Web services, it would
appear that ISPs are taking on an array of liability risks that
might be associated with those injections.  

Possible vectors of risk include security problems associated with
the injected code, phishing or fraud issues associated with any
advertisers who are the subject of injected materials, and so on.
Content providers who might be falsely blamed by users for any such
problems (which were actually caused by ISP injections) would seem
to be another potential litigation source.

I've had trouble finding a valid analogy for such injections in
other contexts.  It clearly doesn't happen with physical mail or
conventional telephone service.  In television and radio
broadcasting, the relationships between network and local
programming, network and locally-inserted commercials, and other
involved parties, are clearly laid out contractually in virtually
all cases.

It seems that the ISP push to monitor and/or modify the content of
user data streams is solely predicated on "we don't think it's
illegal, so we'll keep pushing the envelope" logic. 

Question: Why should users' Internet communications be subject to
related default conditions that would be viewed as inappropriate in
most other communications environments?  Can this be reasonably
justified?  Is it likely to become the subject of civil or criminal
actions, legislative changes, etc.?  

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator