| reply to Pictor Guy
The ironic part of restriction is it that it's SUPPOSED TO make the provider MORE liable for users' actions. The more control you exercise over content, the more "aware" you need to be OF that content. Therefore, you end up in the position of "you KNEW what you were ALLOWING".
Knowing that, I'm a little confused as to why Bell would invite that scenario. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot!... Bell is above the law, as they've been proving all along.
Don't forget, the MPAA and RIAA already approached Bell (and others, including the RCMP), about (what the MAFIAA perceives is) the providers' supposed DUTY to help combat piracy, involving turning over all sorts of user data (IP addresses, specific download activity, user names and addresses, source servers, etc.) to law enforcement, and the ENTERTAINMENT authorities, ON DEMAND!
Shortly after that, Bell put out a notice of a change to their TOS, stating, off all things, they were reserving the right to "cooperate with law enforcement needs". Basically, the customers were told that their personal info and user data ARE SUBJECT to this.
Not long after, came the throttling of BitTorrent and P2P.
This was followed by the news that there are MAFIAA-sanctioned media download sites in the works (think "bandwidth"), and the providing networks would be given "incentives" to participate.
It would be interesting to know what method of file transfer these sites are going to promote to facilitate the downloading of large video files, and how that form of "bandwidth hogging" will be any different than the one they used to "justify" the present throttling.
As far as READING e-mail goes...
Providers DO NOT have any right to actually read your e-mail. They only have the implied "responsibility" to process the headers, in order to attempt to filter spam out of the equation as much as possible.
Yes, content can be scanned by software/algorithms for spam elements, but that's not considered "reading", as it's not done by a human.
I'm not saying a human will never read your e-mail, but such an occurrence would (should) not be due to any "deliberate scrutiny" of the user's personal activity.
This kind of thing, I'm sure, will be included in the coming rebellion over "net neutrality".
(No, I am not a server admin, or anything like that, or anyone that works for a provider. I don't know why "@bell.ca" appears under my name. You couldn't pay me enough to work for Bell, that's for sure! I am a Sympatico user.)
: ) |
