Comment by tim_at_ping
Comment by tim_at_ping 2 months ago
Not at all. Firstly, just from a legal standpoint, the AUPs aren't signed by us; they're signed by the customer and as long as they understand what they're doing through us ensuring we get informed consent, then its their responsibility and judgement on whether they want to break the rules.
On to the ethics of it, again I find it pretty hard to side with ISPs here since the only reason they don't want this activity on their network is because they don't want the additional bandwidth flowing through their fiber and personally, I believe if you buy a 100mb or a 1G internet line from a carrier then it should be yours to use as you wish as long as it remains within the law. This is compounded by the fact that carriers themselves seem to have a tendency to disregard user / privacy agreements and have been happy to sell metadata and location information to any data brokers without ever checking with their customers whether its okay or not.
This is obviously the opinion of someone who has a stake in the game but when it comes to web-scraping, VPN usage, proxies and internet usage in general I tend to find myself believing in a free and open web with any blocks, restrictions or censorship usually being a bad thing.
> from a legal standpoint, the AUPs aren't signed by us; they're signed by the customer and as long as they understand what they're doing through us ensuring we get informed consent, then its their responsibility
Have you consulted legal counsel about this? What you're describing sounds like tortious interference.
> only reason they don't want this activity on their network is because they don't want the additional bandwidth flowing through their fiber
As someone who has a stake in a small ISP: this is not true. I don't want you trashing the reputation of my IPs and getting them banned from the services your customers are scraping. Replacing those IPs comes at a significant cost ($8000-9000 per /24).