Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules
From: Jim Seymour (jseymour_at_linxnet.com)
Date: 08/30/04
- Previous message: Barney Wolff: "Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
- In reply to: Jeremiah Cornelius: "Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
- Next in thread: Fetch, Brandon: "RE: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:10:54 -0400 (EDT)
"Jeremiah Cornelius" <jeremiah@nur.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> His "Terms of Service" are a minor contract,
IANAL. Please elucidate on this "minor contract" point. Again: IANAL,
but I always understood that a contract is a contract is a contract.
> and may well have been
> unilaterally ammended by the ISP after he became a customer.
[snip]
That may well be. In which case one presumes his ISP wouldn't be
taking measures such as blocking port 80 to him?
>
> I don't think there is much of an ethical dilimma in helping this fellow
> out, as long as he is aware that he is risking his service.
Agreed: No ethical dilemma at all. It would clearly be wrong.
>
> If, in his locale, he can't get an equivalent ISP without such an onerous
> restriction, then his ISP is likely an illegal monopoly.
We don't know that. I'm not sure it would matter even if we did. This
is firewall-wizards, not alt.activism or whatever.
> They block the
> ability to serve port 80? They are out of RFC compliance in providing
> Internet services.
Educate me: Which RFC would that be?
> You probably can't get an uneducated court to agree -
> but I'd claim that what they are providing doesn't meet the definition of
> "Big-I" Internet, and are guilty of contratual bad-faith and
> misrepresentation.
Being in the high-tech industry for more years than I'd care to count,
being specifically in systems & network administration for well over a
decade, being somewhat conversant with how the law works, and even
considering I'm a libertarian by nature (is that educated enough?):
You'd not likely get even me to agree, if the TOS explicitly forbade
servers/services.
There is no God-given, natural law or Constitutional right to Internet
access. What there is are for-profit companies (mostly) that provide
various levels of Internet access, for a fee, under contractual
agreement. If I sign a contract that says "No, I'll not run
servers/services," then that's the contract.
Btw: *Most* DSL and cable broadband providers do have SOHO/business
packages that allow the running of services and give one static IP
addresses. Many areas of the country have alternate (usually DSL)
broadband providers that can supply business-class connectivity. Of
course: These options all come at a price.
Jim
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Barney Wolff: "Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
- In reply to: Jeremiah Cornelius: "Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
- Next in thread: Fetch, Brandon: "RE: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
