Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics

[J Edgar Hoover <zorch () totally righteous net>]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, John Hall wrote:

> I am not a lawyer and apparently neither are you, but I bet Comcast is
> quite fully covered by section 2511.2d, if you check your terms of service.

It's interesting to note that the "terms of service", the "privacy policy"
and the "subscriber agreement" are contradictory on this.

With one hand they promise privacy, with the other they reserve the right
to "Collect, Use and Disclose Information on Subscriber Use".. "for
ordinary business purposes".

Not that any of them have any validity, unilateral statements posted to a
website, not acknowledged or accepted by both parties, probably don't mean
much.

Comcast is a wire communications provider.  A public utility, like a
regional phone company. They are not simply an ISP.

I never requested internet service from Comcast. I had Comcast cable, and
@home internet. My cable company, Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
informed me that they were switching my internet access to Comcast Cable
Communications, Inc..

I didn't ask, I didn't agree, they just did it. I didn't sign, waive or
agree to anything.

I was *informed* that my connection was changed. I was not informed that
my traffic would be stolen. I sure as hell never consented to it.

Hopefully the lawyers will get busy on this Monday. I don't have much
interest in further debating the legalities of it. It's wrong, I know it's
wrong, the lawyers can work out the legalities.


z