Before getting too indignant about our rights, etc, it's probably worth checking the agreement between you and your ISP to see what you've agreed to?

 

For example the ATT agreement states, amongst other things, that

 

"AT&T reserves the right to deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate, without notice, the Member Account or the Service provided by AT&T and/or Yahoo to any customer whose use of the service violates the AUP [Acceptable Use Policy]. Examples of violations of the AUP include, but are not limited to: (i) unlawful activities, (ii) violation of intellectual property rights, ..."

 

http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/att/terms/all/

 

All agreements will have something similar - mine does. Even if they don't they will allow the ISP to change its conditions and include them if it wishes.

 

The bottom line is that you are using the ISPs property. If it thinks it's being used for illegal purposes it's entitled to to take steps to stop it. I would if I found someone using my property for illegal purposes - wouldn't anyone?

It is possible that by the time he has to give his oath it will be King Charles.

Yeah, who knows. In some distant future, we may even be forced to give an oath to companies.

 

Which leads us to explaining a bit on what you can agree to, or not. :rolleyes: If a company sets up conditions for a service in a clear and understandable manner and without using vague descriptions but precise statements, that's a win for both sides involved.

 

The fact whether those conditions are enforceable or not and how is a whole different matter. Law enforcement isn't defined by companies. And hopefully never will. Governmental institutions handle laws and any linked forces.

 

So, back to agreements. It's no surprise that providers try to establish a 'pull the plug' phrase to allow for suspending the service without upset costumers (the paying folks). The issue is twofold. Trying to prevent lawsuits in the first place by coming in 'very legal' and therefore avoiding the average user to even start thinking about demanding what they've paid for. Secondly, establishing a legal leverage in case some customer still insists on receiving a service he has paid for.

 

What does that mean? Well, first of all, that the actual process of checking whether a condition from an agreement is enforceable or not doesn't belong to the company. Reality has it that a whole bunch of conditions and agreements either aren't written clear enough, don't get displayed soon enough (e.g. before buying) or just incorporate things which aren't by any means enforceable. An agreement isn't a law, it doesn't define laws and you can't even agree to many things they'd like you to agree to.

 

 

There's no doubt that companies are allowed to prevent the abuse of their service. This for example happens when one customer pays for a service on conditions and prices aiming at end users and then decides to use it commercially.

 

Now, there's a catch. Even with having fancy conditions set up and even with customers just clicking them away (which technically/legally isn't an agreement by the way, depending on the jurisdiction), both sides involved are still bound to e.g. data protection, civil rights, human rights and so on.

 

Again, a twofold issue. You can define conditions but can you actually control them? Legally? And that's the point. To sacrifice every customer's privacy for the sake of trying to catch the small fish already has flipped over the presumption of innocence.

 

By this, privacy is a good being protected by the government and every attempt to harm this quality has to be justified. Justification doesn't take place in some company's office. Which is a good thing. And a main character trait of a state under the rule of law.