[lug] [OT] Qwest's changes Subscriber Agreement...

[Bear Giles]

Nick Golder wrote:
> On 2006-01-17 12:47 -0700, Bear Giles wrote:
> 
>>Does this include SSH?  (E.g., so you can retrieve forgotten files from 
>>work or while on the road.)
> 
> When I called, "public" was defined anything that is accessible to the
> public at large.  If port 22 is accessible /as a port/ to Joe Public,
> then it is a public service /regardless/ if Joe can do anything useful
> with it or not.  I found this to be too Draconian.

Ah, but define "public at large."

With the proper firewall rules, you could limit access to a few sites 
(e.g., work and a few friends).  I think they would have a hard time 
claiming that's the "public at large" if they couldn't even see the 
sites during a port scan.  (They could discover them by examining packet 
headers.)

What about apps that that restrict access to a few sites, e.g., apache 
with .htconfig files?  They might see the web server, but would get 403 
pages.  (iirc).   Is that accessible to "the public at large"?

What about apps that don't have IP-based restrictions but allow access 
based on authentication?  e.g., apache with a different .htconfig file, 
or ssh.

I doubt qwest has given this much thought, but there may be more wiggle 
room than first meets the eye.  SOHOs are still screwed through.

Bear