It's not wrong in Maryland and Virginia. We are, unfortunately, UCITA states. Posting to a website makes a clause enforceable. -----Original Message----- From: J Edgar Hoover [mailto:zorchat_private] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 7:35 PM To: John Hall Cc: vuln-devat_private Subject: Re: Comcast man-in-the-middle attack - ethics On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, John Hall wrote: > I am not a lawyer and apparently neither are you, but I bet Comcast is > quite fully covered by section 2511.2d, if you check your terms of service. It's interesting to note that the "terms of service", the "privacy policy" and the "subscriber agreement" are contradictory on this. With one hand they promise privacy, with the other they reserve the right to "Collect, Use and Disclose Information on Subscriber Use".. "for ordinary business purposes". Not that any of them have any validity, unilateral statements posted to a website, not acknowledged or accepted by both parties, probably don't mean much. Comcast is a wire communications provider. A public utility, like a regional phone company. They are not simply an ISP. I never requested internet service from Comcast. I had Comcast cable, and @home internet. My cable company, Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., informed me that they were switching my internet access to Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.. I didn't ask, I didn't agree, they just did it. I didn't sign, waive or agree to anything. I was *informed* that my connection was changed. I was not informed that my traffic would be stolen. I sure as hell never consented to it. Hopefully the lawyers will get busy on this Monday. I don't have much interest in further debating the legalities of it. It's wrong, I know it's wrong, the lawyers can work out the legalities. z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:44:31 PST