one-to-many messaging

[Peter Fairbrother]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4805D1B2.3030606@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
> 
>>>>> Everyone other than sender and intended recipient are third
>>>>> parties.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not convinced that includes the ISP themselves.
>>> It's complicated because sometimes the ISP is itself the
>>> "intended recipient" - very obviously so for Usenet reading,
>> 
>> No - the usenet server may be the intended recipient (of the user 
>> requests), but the ISP as a whole isn't.
> 
> Can any request be made of "an ISP as a whole"? How do you do that? 
> Sounds like DDOS attack to me.

Consumer ISPs (usually) bundle four things - DNS, email, usenet and 
passing IP packets.

There is no need for these to be bundled, but bundling them has 
advantages - however the prime function of an ISP is to pass IP packets. 
If they don't pass packets then they are not an ISP.

Usenet, email, and to a lesser extent DNS can all be supplied elsewhere. 
It seems quite logical to seperate these functions from passing IP 
packets, at the very least in the way they are treated under the law.

> 
>> not quite so
>>> obviously for Usenet posting [the one-to-many in the title]
>> 
>> which may in some way make the output of the usenet server a
>> broadcast - but not enough to comply with 2(3) to the extent that
>> the server can freely give out details of who looked at each post.
> 
> Don't confuse the issue, that's Ch2 traffic data (assuming it's even
>  logged).

I disagree.
> 
>> and mail
>>> relaying. And finally, maybe even for browsing, if the ISP is
>>> known to  be providing a proxy (or a phishing filter).
>> 
>> no - the client may accept that proxying happens, but it's still 
>> interception - and the client knows it.
>> 
>> Try convincing a jury otherwise.
> 
> If the user has set up a proxy in his browser settings, I think I
> might have a good chance of that.

And how often does that happen .. ?

[...]

> ISPs can't do "anything", but I feel that a lot of the objections are
>  actually arguments for "Net Neutrality" dressed up as 
> anti-legal_interception.

Not what I'm saying.


-- Peter Fairbrother