|
Due processNo investigation? Nothing? Just, "Here's an IP and what was downloaded" thing? This clearly shows, despite how TCP/IP connectivity works, those who appear guilty are not so guilty. Unless she gave her access away, but then again, how are you going to prove that? Wiretaps? blech... | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
1 recommendation |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:29 am
Re: Due processsaid by TuxRaiderPen:No investigation? Nothing? Just, "Here's an IP and what was downloaded" thing? This clearly shows, despite how TCP/IP connectivity works, those who appear guilty are not so guilty. Unless she gave her access away, but then again, how are you going to prove that? Wiretaps? blech... Due process applies to the government. Just like the mods here can ban you or edit your posts for any reason. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. Oh they obviously investigated because they didn't turn off her access and found out her router was unsecured. Sounds like an investigation to me. They actually did her a favor because now she knows to keep her connection secure. Trust me if the person using her connection was downloading child porn the feds wouldn't send her e-mails. They come and confiscate everything. | |
|
| | |
Re: Due processIn this case, they were wrong, so it would be prudent of the company to institute a due process model before termination, unless they want more backlash. | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:39 am
Re: Due processsaid by TuxRaiderPen:In this case, they were wrong, so it would be prudent of the company to institute a due process model before termination, unless they want more backlash. Show me where it says she was terminated. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Due processI said "before termination" not that she was terminated. They wanted to cut her off BEFORE running a thorough investigation. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:54 am
Re: Due processsaid by TuxRaiderPen:I said "before termination" not that she was terminated. They wanted to cut her off BEFORE running a thorough investigation. If they did they would have. They INVESTIGATED. Othewise how did they know she didn't have a secure connection? Yes keep making the ISP the bad guy for just sending out a notice. | |
|
| | | | | | 1 edit |
Re: Due processRead the CNET article. She was going to be terminated. She complains. Qwest investigates. She is cleared. The point is they jumped the gun. I'm not arguing that it isn't the right of the ISP to terminate, only to be justified in doing so. Edit here's a quote: quote: Qwest had a technician investigate--after CNET began making inquiries
| |
|
| | | | | | NOCTech75 Premium Member join:2009-06-29 Marietta, GA |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:said by TuxRaiderPen:I said "before termination" not that she was terminated. They wanted to cut her off BEFORE running a thorough investigation. If they did they would have. They INVESTIGATED. Othewise how did they know she didn't have a secure connection? Yes keep making the ISP the bad guy for just sending out a notice. Only after CNET pushed them.... if CNET had not pushed them I doubt they would have investigated. | |
|
| | | | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-2 11:09 am
Re: Due processsaid by NOCTech75:said by 88615298:said by TuxRaiderPen:I said "before termination" not that she was terminated. They wanted to cut her off BEFORE running a thorough investigation. If they did they would have. They INVESTIGATED. Othewise how did they know she didn't have a secure connection? Yes keep making the ISP the bad guy for just sending out a notice. Only after CNET pushed them.... if CNET had not pushed them I doubt they would have investigated. Was there an investigation or not? Simple yes or no. Yes. Nuff said. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Due processNo, not prior to warning. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Desdinova Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD |
to 88615298
"Was there an investigation or not? Simple yes or no. Yes. Nuff said."
So you're okay with someone throwing you in jail before bothering to investigate, just because a neighbor called the police and said you did something wrong? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Due processYou can't fix "stupid", so don't even try. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP join:2004-03-07 Canada |
to Skippy25
Re: Due processAs my mama would say, "Stupid is as stupid does..." | |
|
| | | | | | | | NOCTech75 Premium Member join:2009-06-29 Marietta, GA |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:Was there an investigation or not? Simple yes or no. Yes. Nuff said. Wow, great response. I guess a carrier getting shamed into doing a correct investigation is enough to absolve the carrier of any wrong doing. What happens when they don't do an investigation? | |
|
| | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
to 88615298
said by 88615298:Was there an investigation or not? Simple yes or no. Yes. Nuff said. BS. That's like when a citizen is being railroaded and ripped off, and then only when the TV station becomes involves and dumps a heap of bad press on the guilty Corporation do they suddenly have a change in heart and the issue is resolved. In no way for or shape is this any sort of due process or fair. It's only because they got called out by the media that justice prevailed otherwise injustice was the order of the day. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:Was there an investigation or not? Simple yes or no. Yes. Nuff said. Sounds like someone is deliberately missing the point. | |
|
| | | | | | fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing
2 recommendations |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:said by TuxRaiderPen:I said "before termination" not that she was terminated. They wanted to cut her off BEFORE running a thorough investigation. If they did they would have. They INVESTIGATED. Othewise how did they know she didn't have a secure connection? Yes keep making the ISP the bad guy for just sending out a notice. The ISP only investigated because CNET was investigating what the ISP had done. Read the article: quote: Last week, Qwest had a technician investigate--after CNET began making inquiries--
The ISP only investigated to cover their own ass, not to deal fairly with a customer. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: Due processCorrect. A sociologist pointed out to me once that we're all governed (whether we're aware or not) by mores and folkways. Corporations, in our free society, are governed only by what is written in the law. So, in this case, while they were within the legal rights of terminating someone on THEIR own network, they were unethical about it. The power of public perception and backlash is incredible. | |
|
| | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:Just like the mods here can ban you or edit your posts for any reason. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. The integrity and marketability of the entire DSLR site could be seriously compromised by a single incompetent user, with unceasingly thoughtless behavior. The same can't be said for the Quest network. Thus there is a need for a level and type of control at DSLR that doesn't exist at Quest. NV | |
|
| |
to TuxRaiderPen
but what happens at strike 3 for some one like that?
what happens if it is a cable tv only customer? | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:No investigation? Nothing? Just, "Here's an IP and what was downloaded" thing? This clearly shows, despite how TCP/IP connectivity works, those who appear guilty are not so guilty. Unless she gave her access away, but then again, how are you going to prove that? Wiretaps? blech... Internet access is not a right guaranteed by law. It is a contract between the homeowner and the provider. Based on contract terms, the provider can terminate access for any of many enumerated reasons, or for "No reason at all". Downloading illegal material is one of the reasons in every contract. If the homeowner fails to follow the contract terms thru the negligence of not securing their wireless access, then they have abrogated the contract and are subject to disconnection at the OPTION of the provider. | |
|
| | |
Re: Due processI'm not arguing the right's of the ISP, only that they justify termination. | |
|
| | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue to FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Feb-2 11:48 am
to FFH5
said by FFH5:Internet access is not a right guaranteed by law. Not yet, at least in this country. | |
|
| |
to TuxRaiderPen
first, let me say that I'm a long time member/troll but this is my first time ever participating in a discussion I have a friend that uses qwest dsl and I can confirm that they will cut you off. He was in the middle of using xbox live when his Internet connection shut off. After doing the standard modem shut down and router restart and his Internet connection didn't return, he called qwest. What they told him was that they ha recieved a complain from NBC/Uniersal saying that his ip address was logged after downloading several episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm torrents. To make a long story short, after more than an hour on the phone and a whole lot of begging to keep his Internet connection (qwest is the only available provider in his apartment complex) they turned it back on and he hasn't used BT since. | |
|
| |
to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:No investigation? Nothing? Just, "Here's an IP and what was downloaded" thing? This clearly shows, despite how TCP/IP connectivity works, those who appear guilty are not so guilty. Unless she gave her access away, but then again, how are you going to prove that? Wiretaps? blech... There was a study done back, what, a year ago? When a professor used a malformed request to a torrent tracker and was able to get the university's IP addresses for some printers in the tracker. The University was sent warning letters for the printers. And if you don't secure your wireless with at least WEP you are only asking for trouble. There are a lot of ignorant people out there. Drive by wifi hijacking! And if someone does do something bad, you are on the hook no matter what. Someone should submit the IP address of dslreports or cnet to a tracker and rattle some cages . The only thing they industry wants is more money without giving up any present holds in technology. We should contact the MPAA and see if they deem VHS as "current technology". | |
|
|
hahaarrg! | |
|
|
I'm so paranoid now, I won't buy music or movies online everThis is what they really want. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: I'm so paranoid now, I won't buy music or movies online everHow about not buying them at all. Why give money to these people? It's like complaining about how the crack dealers are ruining the neighborhood but still buying from them. | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:31 am
Re: I'm so paranoid now, I won't buy music or movies online eversaid by ISurfTooMuch:How about not buying them at all. Why give money to these people? It's like complaining about how the crack dealers are ruining the neighborhood but still buying from them. You realize that's stupid. You don't want to give them money fine. But also don't download them either. Not wanting to pay no matter what the reason doesn't justify you having the content. | |
|
| | | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2010-Feb-2 11:49 am
Re: I'm so paranoid now, I won't buy music or movies online eversaid by 88615298:said by ISurfTooMuch:How about not buying them at all. Why give money to these people? It's like complaining about how the crack dealers are ruining the neighborhood but still buying from them. You realize that's stupid. You don't want to give them money fine. But also don't download them either. Not wanting to pay no matter what the reason doesn't justify you having the content. Why is it "stupid"? He gave an analogy right there. I bolded it for you. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to hescominsoon
If you are getting them from LEGAL sources why worry? | |
|
| | |
| | |
caco Premium Member join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK |
caco
Premium Member
2010-Feb-2 10:23 am
So she is technical recruiterwho can't secure her router. Hey that is who I want intervieiwing people on my behalf.
Maybe Qwest should have been more thorough but this idiot caused the problem by not having a secure setup. | |
|
| ••••••••• |
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2010-Feb-2 10:27 am
wellI think there should be a way to contest such an accusation, especially if/when you're suddenly offline. Just because an internet acct. is in one person's name doesn't mean they are somehow all suddenly network administrators with the knowledge and tools to monitor and control their home network. Just because you are responsible for paying the bill does not automatically mean you should be required to know about every single packet that goes through your network. First of all, it's just not possible for the average home user. Second, how is one person supposed to be in control of what another person does with their own computer, on their own time? I'm sure there are people who would love to make it mandatory for you to install some kind of mini-Websense in every house, which would also report on everything you do automatically... And then the "if you ain't got nothin' to hide" crowd would be sold on it... might as well sell the internet to AOL if it ever comes to that kind of scenario. There is just no way to put this genie back in the bottle. The most obvious thing to do would be a suitable legal alternative, but as the years tick away, we still have yet to see such a system. Sure, there are a few options, but nothing's come close to what iTunes, Rhapsody, and others have done for music. Give people a reason to want a legal service and the "underground" trading of files goes back to just that - underground - not so far into mainstream that ISPs should have to boot their customers. In the meantime, since ISPs are booting people, there ought to be a way to contest it fairly. Say you are in this person's situation, it's kind of like being escorted out of somewhere because somebody else ran up and depantsed you, then scurried off laughing while you got in trouble. Not only is it unfair, it's embarrassing, literally | |
|
| •••••• |
1 recommendation |
ISP's must be regulated under title II! ISP's must be regulated under title II of the communications act! In the good old days of the telephone company monopoly the consumer had a referee to protect them against telephone company abuse, the state public service or utility commission. Consumers that were victims of arbitrary actions by the local telephone company and filed complaints were reviewed by the commission and appropriate action taken, including sanctions against offending telephone companies. Sanctions included fines and reversal of unsupported fees charged consumers. In order to prevent ISP abuse broadband service must be reclassified as a service that falls under Title II of the Communications Act. An article related to this matter was published in ars technica: » arstechnica.com/telecom/ ··· aign=rssISP's are sweating the reclassification of internet access from an information service to a telecommunications service making ISP's telecommunication common carriers. Once reclassified ISP's can be regulated under State Public Service/Utility Commissions. Arbitrary actions by ISP's could be reviewed by the commissions and the situation resolved. I would not hold out to much hope that a change will take place, in view of the amount of payola the ISP's are giving to Federal Lawmakers. | |
|
| SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Re: ISP's must be regulated under title II!..with everything going VoIP lately and the copper infrastructure being dismantled, it's just a matter of time before it happens. | |
|
ciucca join:2004-05-24 Westfield, NJ |
ciucca
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:36 am
They have no Right!Are we now communist China? I pay for my internet access, I can do whatever I want with it, as long as I pay my bill and do not circumvent their network. What happened to the internet? It used to be the wild west, for the technically inclined, now it is a tool of the government. It used to be the only place you could get "real" information about any subject. These days it seems to only be a home shopping network. How sad. | |
|
| ••••• |
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:38 am
What idiot downloads SouthPark?Whoever that idiot is should be beaten for being dumb. You can go to southparkstudios.com and watch every episode ever made for free. LEGALLY. | |
|
| ••••• |
Pv8man join:2008-07-24 Hammond, IN |
Pv8man
Member
2010-Feb-2 10:55 am
Agency calls for global Cyberwarefare treatyThey want to establish a global treaty, which would make internet users have to apply for an "internet drivers license" to browse the web. » rawstory.com/2010/01/age ··· b-users/ | |
|
| •••••••• |
|
I hope it doesnt happen hereWe should have freedom of choice. This is USA, not China! | |
|
winsyrstrifeRiver City Bounce Premium Member join:2002-04-30 Brooklyn, NY |
Please secure your routerMuch worse things can happen than a warning from your ISP & the Entertainment Industry, due to a compromised wireless connection . Please-secure-your-router. Tell your friends / neighbors. I might print out some pamphlets for my neighborhood and hand them out this weekend. I shouldn't see 10 unsecured wireless connections / MAC filtering only / weak WEP protection right off the bat when I scan. Are the ISPs sending out friendly how-To E-mails / letters on how to secure your network & privacy? That would be much better proactive attitude, instead of waiting for a complaint from the MPAA / RIAA, and being forced to take an image-tarnishing stance against your customers. | |
|
| ••• |
r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2010-Feb-2 1:47 pm
What a messA company should not be doing things like this. Kicking people off without being convicted of a crime and kicking people off for excess consumption.
1. Encryption and things like peer block should prevent this, but what if a virus was relaying P2P traffic?? If it is legit they can convict them in court of a crime and get a judge to take away their internet connection.
2. You can't have excess consumption on a network. The ISP has full control of how much you can use your connection. You can only use 100% of your connection it is impossible to use an excess of your connection. | |
|
|
Qwestions
Anon
2010-Feb-2 2:35 pm
QuestionsQwest is also has "3 strikes". First offence you get a temporary shut off. You can get it turned back on by calling tech support and they would be able to send an email regarding the "illegal content". Second would be the same proccess. Third one is the termination of contract.
Questions: 1. By the first warning, dont you think its time to act? 2. Is it the second warning not enough? 3. By not securing your wireless, does that exempt you from dmca. 4. Hypothetical scenario: Do you need the police to secure your house or do you take neccessary precaution to secure your house?
And yes Qwest does boot users for violating dmca. saw it once happened. they had switch isp in the process. | |
|
|
Poor lady from ColoradoQwest you suck! The internet doesn't need nannies or police! I hope you get sued and the lady from Colorado switches to another ISP. Homey don't play that! | |
|
| |
Re: Poor lady from ColoradoIf another ISP is available... | |
|
rims join:2000-10-22 Phoenix, AZ |
rims
Member
2010-Feb-4 9:17 am
Interesting but one sidedMissing from the discussion is the legal pressure facing Qwest for copyright infringement by its customers.
I am sure Qwest would rather its customers download South Park, and otherwise get used to a life requiring high bandwidth, since that is their business model. The legal requirements forced upon them is what is really at issue here. | |
|
|
|