ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ | reply to pokesph
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet Forgery I guess they can do whatever they want as long as they
change their policy?
NOT |
|
ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ | This one is my favorite.
"Comcast gives consumers useful information about
its bandwidth management pratices" |
|
Reviews:
 ·Acanac
| said by ajax25:This one is my favorite. "Comcast gives consumers useful information about its bandwidth management pratices" AHAHAHHAHAH That's a classic PR BS LIE.
Heh, they've been using this technique for MONTHS before the press finally became aware of it. And all that time they were denying EVERYTHING.
Adi |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | reply to ajax25
said by ajax25:I guess they can do whatever they want as long as they change their policy? NOT Not in my state anyway: (bold's are mine)
said by CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(c) :
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(c)
"COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT"
(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages,
deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer
system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute
any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B)
wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.
(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or
makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer
network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether
existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer
system, or computer network.
(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used
computer services.
(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters,
damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or
computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a
computer, computer system, or computer network.
(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the
disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of
computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer
system, or computer network.
(6) Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in
providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or
computer network in violation of this section.
(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be
accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any
computer, computer system, or computer network.
(9) Knowingly and without permission uses the Internet domain name
of another individual, corporation, or entity in connection with the
sending of one or more electronic mail messages, and thereby damages
or causes damage to a computer, computer system, or computer
network.
ref: »nsi.org/Library/Compsec/computer···forn.txt |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
 ·DIRECTV
| reply to ajax25
said by ajax25:This one is my favorite. "Comcast gives consumers useful information about its bandwidth management pratices" LIARS . . . again |
|
2 edits | reply to pokesph
said by pokesph:Not in my state anyway: (bold's are mine) It's nice that you know how to research the Penal Code and all, but Comcrap's practice of throttling/spoofing is still occurring in the Golden State, virtually with impunity, nonetheless. Additionally, take notice in the Hart v. Comcast complaint, your Penal Code citation is not a cause of action. Guess you better notify Hart's legal counsel -the Lexington Law Group- that you found the magic law that will prohibit Comcast's practices. |
|
|
|
pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Yeah I saw that.. I hope his lawyer is up for the task.. and that the court recognizes it's own laws.. |
|
| said by pokesph:Yeah I saw that.. I hope his lawyer is up for the task.. and that the court recognizes it's own laws.. My point was that Comcast throttling/spoofing is occurring in California with impunity, and, despite your assertion to the contrary of, as well as a lawsuit brought by another individual, the Penal Code section you cited does not appear in Hart's complaint. |
|
 NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1 | reply to pokesph
#4 It is their network, so they give themselves permission. And further more you gave them permission when you agreed to the TOS & AUP.
#5 Ditto
#8 Rest packets are not a contaminant. You all yell about defining "reasonable", so define contaminant.
--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Honor Your ISP Terms of Service
Comcast: »www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Verizon: »onlinehelp.verizon.net/consumer/···0707.pdf |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | said by NOYB:#4 It is their network, so they give themselves permission. And further more you gave them permission when you agreed to the TOS & AUP. #5 Ditto #8 Rest packets are not a contaminant. You all yell about defining "reasonable", so define contaminant. TOS, AUPs, and EULAs are not above state and federal laws, so your argument is moot.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
lillypad
join:2005-11-19
San Francisco, CA | reply to NOYB
I didn't realize that the cabling from their cable modem connection to another person's computer was their network. However I DO believe that the forged packet has to travel over said cabling. |
|
