3 ms·

It should be made illegal if it isn't already. Since "any site" did not consent, doesn't this injection really "change" their site?

by sigzero 14y ago

notatoad 14y ago
i believe it counts as copyright infringement. if you modify content in-transit, you're creating a derivative work. not sure if this has ever been tested legally though.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  In such a case wouldn't any form of proxying be copyright infringement, even without modification be copyright infringement? There are also other applications of modification of pages in transit, for example mobile connections often proxy a lower quality version of images (done transparently by the ISP) to save bandwidth. Also some proxies may block videos , ads etc which is as much modification as adding them.
jeffdavis 14y ago
Maybe they should lose their "common carrier" status if they mess with the content? Then they would be responsible for whatever is said on the internet, which would probably dissuade them from doing it.
- jauer 14y ago
  Most ISPs in the US don't operate under common carrier regulations. Even the ILECs (essentially the only common carrier data networks) sell their internet services via subsidiaries to avoid it.
  - jeffdavis 14y ago
    Oh, interesting. What protects them from libel suits and the like, then?
    - jauer 14y ago
      Libel for? Cases like this where they are making Apple look bad? I think that would be a stretch. Typically ISP terms of use say they can do pretty much whatever they want (see the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act/The Whole Aaron Swartz Thing). In theory if you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere. This "take your business elsewhere" competitive environment is supposed to foster innovation blah blah. Many would say this is BS and more regulation is needed because of a duopoly. As a competitive ISP I have to disagree, but it is true that the duopoly providers spend more on advertising so most people aren't aware of alternatives. One could argue that rewriting pages to insert JS makes a derivative work or something and that gives Apple grounds to sue because of copyright, but that's tough as ISPs are supposed to be finding ways to inflict the Emergency Broadcast System on users and JS insertion is generally less obtrusive than hijacking all HTTP/HTTPS until the alert clears. My perception is that most ISPs avoid this kind of thing because we don't want to give the FCC any more excuses to mandate things like "Net Neutrality" with poorly understood policy consequences. On the other hand inflicting one of those DNS-hijacking special offers systems can increase revenue from the typical residential user that wouldn't care by a few percent so there's always a bit of business pressure.

It should be made illegal if it isn't already. Since "any site" did not consent, doesn't this injection really "change" their site?

by sigzero 14y ago

It should be made illegal if it isn't already. Since "any site" did not consent, doesn't this injection really "change" their site?

notatoad 14y ago

i believe it counts as copyright infringement. if you modify content in-transit, you're creating a derivative work. not sure if this has ever been tested legally though.

jiggy2011 14y ago
In such a case wouldn't any form of proxying be copyright infringement, even without modification be copyright infringement? There are also other applications of modification of pages in transit, for example mobile connections often proxy a lower quality version of images (done transparently by the ISP) to save bandwidth. Also some proxies may block videos , ads etc which is as much modification as adding them.

jeffdavis 14y ago

Maybe they should lose their "common carrier" status if they mess with the content? Then they would be responsible for whatever is said on the internet, which would probably dissuade them from doing it.

jauer 14y ago
Most ISPs in the US don't operate under common carrier regulations. Even the ILECs (essentially the only common carrier data networks) sell their internet services via subsidiaries to avoid it.
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  Oh, interesting. What protects them from libel suits and the like, then?
  - jauer 14y ago
    Libel for? Cases like this where they are making Apple look bad? I think that would be a stretch. Typically ISP terms of use say they can do pretty much whatever they want (see the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act/The Whole Aaron Swartz Thing). In theory if you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere. This "take your business elsewhere" competitive environment is supposed to foster innovation blah blah. Many would say this is BS and more regulation is needed because of a duopoly. As a competitive ISP I have to disagree, but it is true that the duopoly providers spend more on advertising so most people aren't aware of alternatives. One could argue that rewriting pages to insert JS makes a derivative work or something and that gives Apple grounds to sue because of copyright, but that's tough as ISPs are supposed to be finding ways to inflict the Emergency Broadcast System on users and JS insertion is generally less obtrusive than hijacking all HTTP/HTTPS until the alert clears. My perception is that most ISPs avoid this kind of thing because we don't want to give the FCC any more excuses to mandate things like "Net Neutrality" with poorly understood policy consequences. On the other hand inflicting one of those DNS-hijacking special offers systems can increase revenue from the typical residential user that wouldn't care by a few percent so there's always a bit of business pressure.