Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules

From: Jim Seymour (jseymour_at_linxnet.com)
Date: 08/30/04

  • Next message: Jim Seymour: "Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"
    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


  • Next message: Jim Seymour: "Re: [fw-wiz] About Port Forwarding, Apache and Firewall Rules"