Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

richsnapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 294 posts

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#51

Post by bashinator »

pwg wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, the fault here lies with the politician. I disagree: the claim by CenturyLink that this particularly intrusive, access blocking method is mandated is simply false. It's true that it is permitted by the state law (just as it would be permitted without any specific law on the topic at all), and even arguable that it is one means of complying with the law. (Though since the notification is not presented to some us…

> 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 perfo…

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?

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#52

Post by blattimwind »

kingbirdy wrote: post #37
fpgaminer wrote: post #13

Hmmm, so if I were on CenturyLink and in the "SOL" category the following could have happened. Attempting to email my state senators to express a political opinion? Freedom of speech: Blocked. Buying from a company online, located in another state? Interstate commerce: Blocked. Trying to run an online business? Blocked. Trying to contact my kids? Blocked. My elderly grandmother is dying and family was trying to Skype…

Your constitutional protections are protections from the government, not businesses.

This isn't necessarily true. E.g. the fourth amendment applies, according to precedent, to communications service providers in at least some capacity.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#53

Post by craftyguy »

kingbirdy wrote: post #37
fpgaminer wrote: post #13

Hmmm, so if I were on CenturyLink and in the "SOL" category the following could have happened. Attempting to email my state senators to express a political opinion? Freedom of speech: Blocked. Buying from a company online, located in another state? Interstate commerce: Blocked. Trying to run an online business? Blocked. Trying to contact my kids? Blocked. My elderly grandmother is dying and family was trying to Skype…

Your constitutional protections are protections from the government, not businesses.

Is the line a bit fuzzy though because most ISPs in the US are government-sanctioned monopolies?

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#54

Post by anthuswilliams »

pwg wrote: post #4

And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law. The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query: SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice. And here is the text of the statute that was written: (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i): (A) by electronic com…

The law required CenturyLink to notify its customers and intentionally did not mandate a particular means of doing so. This is a feature, not a bug.

Now, shady DNS spoofing may be one means of complying with the law (though it may violate others), but it was CenturyLink that chose this non-standard approach. They could instead have complied by sending an email, a physical letter, a messenger physically knocking on a customer's door etc., a flier hung on the doorknob, etc.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#55

Post by crispyporkbites »

Why is this so surprising? You pay for your internet from this service provider and this is the trust you're putting in this private company. All your communication that goes down this channel is subject to their rules, and unless you encyrpt it they can do what they like.

I think these kind of crappy implementations just surface a bigger problem underneath. If you don't choose your own DNS servers, if you don't have proper DNS security, https by default everywhere etc. etc. you don't have a secure connection.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#56

Post by behringer »

pureagave wrote: post #7
pwg wrote: post #4

And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law. The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query: SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice. And here is the text of the statute that was written: (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i): (A) by electronic com…

I agree that the fault lies with the politician, but I would argue that the real issue is that they forced all ISPs to send notice to customers. If a politician wants something communicated, they can fund a public awareness program, not force it on ISPs. That fault doesn't exonerate CentryLink's action. edited to add CentryLink responsibility

Haha I think you hit the nail on the head. Maybe this was Centurylink's way of giving a big F U to the politicians making them advertise something they don't want to advertise.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#57

Post by vertex-four »

kawfey wrote: post #44
JohnFen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So, the fault here lies with the politician." No. The fault lies with CenturyLink. They're the ones who decided to implement this in the most repulsive way allowed by law. The law only required notification using normal communications methods, not disruption of services. CenturyLink is the one who chose disruption of services.

Why in the world was this the decision they came up with?

Some lawyer-management meeting resulted in the argument that they didn’t want customers to be able to claim they had never seen the notice, most likely.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#58

Post by rayiner »

pwg wrote: post #4

And here we see the disconnect between what politicians say, and what they write into law. The bill's sponsor's response to the blog authors query: SB134 did not require that ...They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice. And here is the text of the statute that was written: (ii) A service provider may provide the notice described in Subsection (2)(b)(i): (A) by electronic com…

I don't really see this as an example of a "disconnect." It's simply the difference between talking about a law informally, and the actual formal implementation of the law.

The intent of the law is clear: customers should be notified that this content exists. The implementation language reflects that. CenturyLink is simply covering its ass: many people don't use ISP-provided email addresses, so if that's all they did they would be open to criticism that they are not actually trying to achieve effective notice.

Re: CenturyLink is blocking customer internet, saying Utah legislators told them to

#60

Post by jstarfish »

jrnichols wrote: post #33
markovbot wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's horrible, did you call them up and ask why their DNS servers are fraudulently lying about IP addresses of certain high traffic domains?

I have the feeling they wouldn't get much past the overly scripted front line service, unfortunately.

I keep telling myself that one day when some company run this way does me wrong enough, I'm going to go score a pile of Adderall, some cell phones and a pack of Depends and patiently battle/harass my way through the entire scripted management hierarchy until the CEO himself gets on the phone, personally apologizes for the mishap and invites me to his birthday party.
Post reply on HN