Forum Moderators: open
207.31.249.204 - - [13/Nov/2002:08:54:21 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 14146 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0; T312461)"
Initially I denied 207.31.249. even though I realized it was either a cable or dsl and the IP varies.
Today this visitor appeared.
207.31.251.141 - - [14/Feb/2003:02:29:25 -0800] "GET /myfile.html HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; T312461)"
Today I modified the IP range to 207.31. and also included a SetEnv on the IE update.
It's a shame that many Verio users and IE users are going to pay because of one persons actions.
However the responibility is entirely with Verio and their lack of enforcing their own TOS.
I might add that most every other backbone provider has similar TOS as Verio and has the same disregard for website infractions by its users. :(
My reasoning is that a backbone/ISP is largely "opaque" wrt. to its end users apart from necessary transit protocol compliance (i.e. IP). The backbone/ISP really doesn't have (nor could it be justified to undertake) higher level "policing" of TCP/UDP/session/etc level content. However, the ISP would have a process in place so that if one of its users is acting in a disruptive manner, then you could make a complaint to the ISP, and after multiple complaints, the ISP may be justified in terminating the user for failing to honour TOS.
Because if one user from the ISP causes you a problem and then you block access to the entire backbone, the other users (or even the ISP) could take issue with you under grounds of discrimination.
Example: say you were a well known website, e.g. slashdot. Customers of said ISP may terminate their service with the ISP and go to another ISP because they can't access their favourite website - and the ISP would lose business and customers because of an unfair action on your behalf. ISP could complain to you that it is not fair for you to prevent access to all ISP users simply because of actions of a single ISP user, and that ISP has a complaints procedure that should be used if one of its users is acting disruptively (alternatively, you could employ better technological measures on your website). They would be fair in stating that they are under no obligation nor economic practicality/etc to police higher level content. If you have an issue with particular user abusing TOS/QOS, then you just follow proper their process and identify source IP to the ISP who will look to see whether there are multiple violations (say, from you and other complainaints) and then act to the source IP because the source ISP has violated TOS of the ISP.
Just a hypothetical question: but it pays to be a bit prudent rather than get stung as a test case.
Matthew.
Laws exclusive to the US have yet to find a niche in appication across-board on the internet?
Even the US Supreme Court is repellling some of its own previous implemented laws regarding discrimination.
Doubt my word?
Look at the great sucess of the US to enforce gambling laws on the internet.
1) Off-shore
2) Not only exclusive to off-shore but enforcable to from state to state, state to province or any mix of the aforementioned.
Until the goverment finds a way to pay for my bandwidth they won't find a way to implement their standards.
As a result I say "hogwash" to your devil :)
Don
[Edited by wilderness 02/25/03]
Matthew, I've edited to make room for this addition which was from a backbone provider. (I won't name the company. If anybody is curious Sticky me.) On November 29, 2001.
The response reads as follows:
Blocking OUR IP's will not rectify your situation, as it would not prevent other websites from linking your images. There are technological solutions to prevent people from linking your images. I am not sure what kind of http server you are currently running, but here is a link to a guide for url rewriting with apache webserver, [engelschall.com...] I can understand your frustration, as I was in the same position as you are at one point and found that solving the problem was better than patching it.
end of quote.
I took his advice and began my exploring of htaccess :)
Don
Calling this commentary hypothetical nonsense is completely unfair. As I mentioned, it's a hypothetical question based on some analogies with the real world.
As we know, many legal issues with the online world are not fully fleshed out, and we are constantly finding ways in which they intersect. Our only way to "play it safe" ahead of time (rather than end up in a court of law and learn the hard way) is to draw analogies with existing concepts and situations. This involves speculative analysis - which could be reasonable, or could be wild and nonsensical. Hopefully we always move towards reason. Individuals don't always get it right, but it's through the repeated attempts and actions of many individuals over time that we refine our understanding and come to some consensus.
There are many case law examples where legal concepts and principles are applied from one field to a new field: this is precisely what judicial decisions are about.
That's also not to say that in specific cases (you mention discrimination) that existing precedents are overtuned. Look at antitrust law, which may be applicable here. Law is a constantly evolving thing, and there are often conflicts and uncertainties : especially with new technologies, it often takes quite some time for the issues to be entirely fleshed out. In contract law, the important cases in precedent are strung out over hundreds of years, and in some cases existing decisions were overturned.
It's also not an issue whether you pay for the bandwidth or not. If you open a store to sell clothing items, and you pay for the store rental and everything else, that doesn't allow you to arbitrarily discriminate customers on the basis of colour and other attributes - we operate a reasonably fair society. Even if one of those customers of a particular colour turns out to be a shoft-lifter, you can't then simply state that as you were shop-lifted from colour X once, that your new rule is to ban access to your shop from all colour X people. Of course you have some control: you can set quality standards and rules when they relate specifically to your objective (e.g. a stylish upmarket shop you may be able to specify no customers barefoot or in ratty clothes) - this bears some analogy to where it's possible to deny access to specific users to your website *based on objective criteria about the nature of the user itself* rather than *based on some presumptions and unfounded objectives about a class of user*.
That someone would deny access to a whole net range due to the actions of one individual strikes me as being analogous to this.
devils advocate :-).
Matthew.
I think this fits in with a thread I initiated and had hope for more response on.
[webmasterworld.com...]
littleman! Can you help?
Unfortuantely the in "most instances" the internet has yet to become "the real world."
If you care to spend time searching? I'm most positive you'll find some incredible percentage that exceeeds 90 of websites which are either non-profit or fail to make a profit.
If I contact both a provider and a backbone when an infraction occurrs and their only response is automated and that automation is repeated over numerous attempts than they assume their own liability for not taking a corrective action when informed that their offending user threatend their remaining users or even a portion of.
This is the modus-operandi for backbone whose only interest is in bandwidth $$ and NOT in the enforcement of their own user agrrements.
Discrimination is changing these days. During the early days laws were enacted to provide balance for previous offenses. The US law has realize that and discrimination in the courts has changed.
INTENT is most important.
Our intent as webmasters is to keep our sites operating while protecting our content in whatever means is possible. Especially with lack of cooperation from IP's or backbones.
Denying access to subscribers from an IP range can (at least IMO and intent) be a parallel to discrimination. In order to discriminate (race, sex, creed, color, religion, have I missed anything?) I must either SEE or COMMUNICATE with that person.
With the above last line in mind?
When a user visits my site and fails to both read and abide by my TOS than ranges are banned. If I contact the backbone and provide a supporting URL which is violation of that backbones Terms of Use in agreement with my own TOS and the backbone fails to accept responsibilty?
How than can that be either discrimination or liability?
The result is an in-action by the service provider to protect it other customer base.
I personally don't believe we (the internet community) will ever see application of your 3rd last paragraph to the INTERNATIOAL internet.
The internet is not based only in the US and that is primarily where the parallel of your concern takes a declining precednce.
Don
[edited wilderness 02/26/03]
I've grown too dependednt on my built-in spell checker in my mail program :(
