Qwest Says It Can Charge You If Your Computer Spams Anyone
from the idle-threats? dept
Ridiculous terms of service from telcos are really nothing new. Hell, if telcos actually enforced all the terms in their terms of service it's unlikely anyone would be able to use most telco services. However, that doesn't mean it's not worth shining a light on some of the more onerous terms of service. Someone on Dave Farber's Interesting People list noticed that Qwest's DSL terms of service forbids all sorts of things, such as setting up a WiFi hotspot for customers or setting up any server -- even if you have a static IP address. This is the type of stuff you might expect overly worried ISPs to say anyway, but apparently this agreement supposedly counts even if another company is your ISP, and Qwest is just providing the line. In other words, if you get Speakeasy DSL using a Qwest line, even though Speakeasy lets you share your connection with neighbors and set up servers, you'd be in violation of Qwest's rules. Even more interesting, though, is the spam clause. If Qwest discovers your machine has been hijacked by a trojan and is sending out spam, you're liable for $5/spam message. Now, I'm sure some folks will suggest that it's the computer owners' responsibility to protect their machines, and the threat of a $5/spam fine could wake a few folks up who are lax in their computer security -- but it still seems to be a bit much for the average user who may simply have no idea why they suddenly appear to owe Qwest millions of dollars.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
And that is the lump sum they would get from me.
Let them take me to court. There is such thing as reasonable doubt and I could create that even without a lawyer. There are so many ways to hijack a computer line that are not the customers fault it is not funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reasonable Doubt (was: No Subject Given)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reasonable Doubt (was: No Subject Given)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reasonable Doubt (was: No Subject Given)
They can put forth whatever terms they want to - you don't have to sign on the dotted line. Being online is not some god-given right - why should someone who doesn't understand security have the "right" to get hacked and bombard me with spam? I don't like Qwest, but I don't mind this - as long as they apply the clause fairly (ha).
Just think though - if they DID enforce it. It would change everything overnight..
[ link to this | view in thread ]