how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
95 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | Hello, FreeS/WAN and opportunistic encryption IPv6 requires support for, but does not necessarily have to use, encryption between networking peers. Until this is adopted, in the mean time we can push for as many FreeS/WAN opportunistic encryption hosts to be put up as possible. What this means is FreeS/WAN intercepts attempts to connect to a remote host, determines if an IPSec connection is possible, and transports your data in the ESP part of IPSec if possible, and falls back to normal IP if not. To me, it's none of the ISP's damn business what is in my packets.
said by PenTelData:
-Serving files via peer-to-peer file-sharing applications encourage – and make it easy – for
users from anywhere around the world to download files from your computer as long as it’s turned on,
even if you aren’t using it, with or without your knowledge. This creates security concerns and
further consumes Internet bandwidth and taxes PenTeleData’s network unnecessarily.
In principle it's none of their damn business whether I drop all communications off the face of the Earth, or give anyone and everyone complete and full access to everything on my network-attached computer. (In practice, since someone could use a completely unprotected computer for relaying (attacks and spam), dropping all security is not practical.) I and I alone am responsible for what I let people access on my computer. Of course, if the AUP to which I agreed does not allow serving, I must act appropriately or I will be in breach of contract, but I've always been opposed to this sort of silliness. "You" are there to provide a pipe to the Internet; "you" shouldn't care how I use it, or else change some other aspect of the service package (as in, if you're worried about use of upstream bandwidth, charge me at a REASONABLY higher rate to cover your additional costs and shut up). Why are you saying it's taxing your network? Might this mean you should upgrade your network? Who are YOU to say it's unnecessary traffic? The only unnecessary traffic I know about is floods of various kinds (ping, SYN, etc.).
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. | |
| said by rchandra:
In principle it's none of their damn business whether I drop all communications off the face of the Earth, or give anyone and everyone complete and full access to everything on my network-attached computer. (In practice, since someone could use a completely unprotected computer for relaying (attacks and spam), dropping all security is not practical.) I and I alone am responsible for what I let people access on my computer. Of course, if the AUP to which I agreed does not allow serving, I must act appropriately or I will be in breach of contract, but I've always been opposed to this sort of silliness. "You" are there to provide a pipe to the Internet; "you" shouldn't care how I use it, or else change some other aspect of the service package (as in, if you're worried about use of upstream bandwidth, charge me at a REASONABLY higher rate to cover your additional costs and shut up). Why are you saying it's taxing your network? Might this mean you should upgrade your network? Who are YOU to say it's unnecessary traffic? The only unnecessary traffic I know about is floods of various kinds (ping, SYN, etc.).
Why do people think that ISP's are different than any other business? It is their service and they can do whatever they want with it and restrict it however they want to. I would like to know where it says an ISP has to be an open pipe that you can do whatever you want with it? If you don't like it, don't buy their service. You can always buy your own connection (although most cannot afford it) and do what you want with it. You could also start your own ISP and make it into what you view as the perfect provider.
To answer your questions, THEY are the people who provide the service and make the rules. If you don't like the rules, move on out. This company knows they may lose some customers with this policy, but they apparently think they will be better off without those customers.
Matt | |
|
