3 ms·

> claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false Agreed - also not the point I was making. > it's n

by pwg 8y ago

> claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false Agreed - also not the point I was making. > it's not any lawmaker’s fault that CenturyLink chose to implement pretty much the most user-hostile method imaginable Oh but it is the lawmaker's fault. It is the lawmaker's fault by writing a law that was so broadly worded as to allow Century Link to be able to perform this "user-hostile method" under cover of being within the wording of the law. If the law maker had written a more narrow law, and written what he actually intended, then CL using this method would have been in clear violation of the law, rather than being able to hide behind "we are permitted this method by the law".

bashinator 8y ago
It looks to me like the use of the word "may" in the actual law lends a degree of flexibility to the implementation. A service provider *may* provide the notice [...] That does not seem like a hard requirement. Or is this a case where legalese differs from commonly-understood grammar?
- pytyper2 8y ago
  Depends on what the meaning of "is" is...
- pwg 8y ago
  That "may" there appears to refer to selecting among the choices (A), (B), or (C) within the statute. The portion before the selection list (which I did not quote, as it can be read in full in the actual article) begins: A service provider shall, before December 30, 2018, notify ... This clause says they "shall" notify. So it is mandatory they notify. It is not mandatory that they perform the notification via the means they selected to perform the notification. The method is awful, but the method is allowed by at least clause (C) of the statute. Which was my original point. The bill sponsor replied that their intent was "by email" or "with the invoice". But what they wrote as the statute not only encompasses that intent, but allows choosing a huge number of other, many very awful (as is this one), ways of 'notifying' as well. If the sponsor's intent was "email" or "with invoice" then their statute should have said "by email" or "with invoice".
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    This feels particularly delusional. Even if the law said that this notification must be delivered via certified mail, that would obviously not prevent Centurylink from also doing this. Why is it that you so badly want to blame lawmakers for this?
theptip 8y ago
> If the law maker had written a more narrow law It shouldn't be the lawmaker's job to specify how businesses go about doing their business. The law was written generically enough that any sensible option would satisfy it; email, postal letter, addendum to your bill, or some other "electronic communication" that the lawmakers aren't qualified to specify. This is how laws should be written. There's absolutely no justification to CenturyLink choosing DNS hijacking over a simple email in this case, and "the law made me do it" is a particularly weak excuse.
- jandrese 8y ago
  "The law made me do it" is an outright lie. They had numerous options under the law and they chose this one all on their own. They're trying to pass the buck onto the legislators and we should not stand for it.
mkhalil 8y ago
> under cover of being within the wording of the law. > then CL using this method would have been in clear violation of the law DNS spoofing by an ISP a clear violation of the law? Since when? Just because the law makers don't say email doesn't mean they mean to hijack DNS. If someone asked you to pick up some food for them on the way home, are you doing to bring leftovers from two weeks ago because they didn't specify from where and exactly what they wanted? Blaming this on the lawmakers doesn't make sense. ISP had a broad way to use "electronic communications" and they chose a HORRIBLE one.
eropple 8y ago
Once again--yet again--it mystifies me that anybody would privilege the literal capability of being an asshole over the moral responsibility of not being one.
cookiecaper 8y ago
Consider if such a law was written in the late 80s when fax machines dominated. Suppose that the law specified "send by fax" instead of "electronic communication".

by pwg 8y ago

bashinator 8y ago

It looks to me like the use of the word "may" in the actual law lends a degree of flexibility to the implementation. A service provider *may* provide the notice [...] That does not seem like a hard requirement. Or is this a case where legalese differs from commonly-understood grammar?

pytyper2 8y ago
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is...
pwg 8y ago
That "may" there appears to refer to selecting among the choices (A), (B), or (C) within the statute. The portion before the selection list (which I did not quote, as it can be read in full in the actual article) begins: A service provider shall, before December 30, 2018, notify ... This clause says they "shall" notify. So it is mandatory they notify. It is not mandatory that they perform the notification via the means they selected to perform the notification. The method is awful, but the method is allowed by at least clause (C) of the statute. Which was my original point. The bill sponsor replied that their intent was "by email" or "with the invoice". But what they wrote as the statute not only encompasses that intent, but allows choosing a huge number of other, many very awful (as is this one), ways of 'notifying' as well. If the sponsor's intent was "email" or "with invoice" then their statute should have said "by email" or "with invoice".
- ryanlol 8y ago
  This feels particularly delusional. Even if the law said that this notification must be delivered via certified mail, that would obviously not prevent Centurylink from also doing this. Why is it that you so badly want to blame lawmakers for this?

theptip 8y ago

> If the law maker had written a more narrow law It shouldn't be the lawmaker's job to specify how businesses go about doing their business. The law was written generically enough that any sensible option would satisfy it; email, postal letter, addendum to your bill, or some other "electronic communication" that the lawmakers aren't qualified to specify. This is how laws should be written. There's absolutely no justification to CenturyLink choosing DNS hijacking over a simple email in this case, and "the law made me do it" is a particularly weak excuse.

jandrese 8y ago
"The law made me do it" is an outright lie. They had numerous options under the law and they chose this one all on their own. They're trying to pass the buck onto the legislators and we should not stand for it.

mkhalil 8y ago

> under cover of being within the wording of the law. > then CL using this method would have been in clear violation of the law DNS spoofing by an ISP a clear violation of the law? Since when? Just because the law makers don't say email doesn't mean they mean to hijack DNS. If someone asked you to pick up some food for them on the way home, are you doing to bring leftovers from two weeks ago because they didn't specify from where and exactly what they wanted? Blaming this on the lawmakers doesn't make sense. ISP had a broad way to use "electronic communications" and they chose a HORRIBLE one.

eropple 8y ago

Once again--yet again--it mystifies me that anybody would privilege the literal capability of being an asshole over the moral responsibility of not being one.

cookiecaper 8y ago

Consider if such a law was written in the late 80s when fax machines dominated. Suppose that the law specified "send by fax" instead of "electronic communication".