EFF dissatisfied with the ban on servers at Internet providers
Lawyers of the Foundation for Electronic Frontiers have published a statement about the "disgusting tradition of Internet providers to ban" servers "." The rules of many US providers, including Comcast, Verizon, Cox and AT & T, prohibit the installation of servers, the user. Recently , Google joined their ranks with its Google Fiber project. This is despite the fact that Google has always advocated the principles of network neutrality.
EFF lawyers explain that problems with “banning servers” begin with the lack of a clear definition of the concept of “server”. The ban on “servers of any type” may mean that users are formally prohibited from raising mail servers on their computers, remotely controlled media servers, SSH tunnels to access their home computer from work, Minecraft servers to play with friends, home devices like Nest thermostats, who broadcast information via the Internet, it is even impossible to put a video nurse - a camera that shoots a newborn, broadcasting a picture on the network to monitor the baby.
None of these devices can be called a “harmful” network, but each of them can be called a “server”. Even a client on the BitTorrent network at the same time not only downloads, but also distributes traffic, in fact, performs the role of not only the client, but also the distributing server. And such nuances are inherent not only in BitTorrent, because P2P mechanisms are increasingly used in various network applications and are part of the architecture of many well-known services, from Skype to Spotify.
')
In such situations, vague laws are harmful in any case: either they will be used against harmless services, or they are used selectively against services that the provider does not like. None of the above providers gave a concrete clear definition of the concept of “server” in order not to tie their hands in the event of future clashes.
EFF lawyers write that the ban on servers makes you wonder: why bother to ban them at all? Users have different needs, and raising a home server is sometimes necessary. In some cases, this is the best way to provide a secure communication channel. For example, a VPN server or SSH server helps to connect your home computer to a secure network. A home mail server helps to better protect email correspondence and secure our constitutional rights. Devices like the FreedomBox home router, designed to protect the privacy of users, are based on software that can be called "server". In general, servers can be used in various clever ways, and if the ban on them is lifted, this only contributes to innovation and better protection of users.
In the future, this problem will become more urgent, especially with the proliferation of IPv6, when, in the absence of NAT, each user can easily set up a regular web server on his computer.
“We are disappointed in Google and hope that the search giant will reconsider its decision. In the end, improving Internet access in this country is not only to provide citizens with a higher speed, but also greater freedom, ”the EFF said in a statement.
EFF lawyers explain that problems with “banning servers” begin with the lack of a clear definition of the concept of “server”. The ban on “servers of any type” may mean that users are formally prohibited from raising mail servers on their computers, remotely controlled media servers, SSH tunnels to access their home computer from work, Minecraft servers to play with friends, home devices like Nest thermostats, who broadcast information via the Internet, it is even impossible to put a video nurse - a camera that shoots a newborn, broadcasting a picture on the network to monitor the baby.
None of these devices can be called a “harmful” network, but each of them can be called a “server”. Even a client on the BitTorrent network at the same time not only downloads, but also distributes traffic, in fact, performs the role of not only the client, but also the distributing server. And such nuances are inherent not only in BitTorrent, because P2P mechanisms are increasingly used in various network applications and are part of the architecture of many well-known services, from Skype to Spotify.
')
In such situations, vague laws are harmful in any case: either they will be used against harmless services, or they are used selectively against services that the provider does not like. None of the above providers gave a concrete clear definition of the concept of “server” in order not to tie their hands in the event of future clashes.
EFF lawyers write that the ban on servers makes you wonder: why bother to ban them at all? Users have different needs, and raising a home server is sometimes necessary. In some cases, this is the best way to provide a secure communication channel. For example, a VPN server or SSH server helps to connect your home computer to a secure network. A home mail server helps to better protect email correspondence and secure our constitutional rights. Devices like the FreedomBox home router, designed to protect the privacy of users, are based on software that can be called "server". In general, servers can be used in various clever ways, and if the ban on them is lifted, this only contributes to innovation and better protection of users.
In the future, this problem will become more urgent, especially with the proliferation of IPv6, when, in the absence of NAT, each user can easily set up a regular web server on his computer.
“We are disappointed in Google and hope that the search giant will reconsider its decision. In the end, improving Internet access in this country is not only to provide citizens with a higher speed, but also greater freedom, ”the EFF said in a statement.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/189990/
All Articles