Oh please,this is not new. They've been doing this for at least 5 years that I know of. If you pirate,they dmca alert you with MITM'd divs in the html pages you visit. I mean the fact they inject http headers is one thing but they don't even care to do a 301 or mess with DNS responses,they will inject code in your browser tab!
Lawyers on HN, how is this not a violation of CFAA? If I sat at a coffee shop and did the same thing (say a "harmless" js "alert('Hi everyone!');") that is punishable with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment. So you're saying if I was the ISP that's ok? Why is the FBI/DOJ not criminally prosecuting comcast's CEO? Preferential treatment or prosecutorial discretion? Will comcast start pushing back on dragnet sutveillance cooperation?
The whole thing is so crooked! How can we bring this to the attention of lawnakers and media?? If the post office put notes in your mail (outside of a law enforcement request) would it not be a big deal?
Have you read your ISP’s terms of service? Do you really think Comcast didn’t include language giving them the right to do almost anything to your traffic?
An agreement is invalid if it is unlawful. Think of it this way, a packet in transit belongs both to the sender and receiver but never to the intetmediary. Even if a comcast customer agreed to a ToS stating all their traffic solely belongs to Comcast, the servers sending the traffic to the Comcast customer never gave that permission,they never allowed comcast to present altered content to their customer. The only way that reasoning holds up is if comcast and comcast's customers are one legal entity(you're essentially their subject much like an employee but even then employees are distinct)
How is this unlawful without robust network neutrality legislation? They’re not claiming ownership or redistributing it, and I’m sure they’d argue that this shouldn’t have any side effects.
I’m far from a fan of Comcast but this doesn’t seem like something we have a good legal angle for addressing.
Because they're manipupating content, CFAA is a law that exists to mitigate unauthorized access and obstruction of computer systems...that's how,the same law any ordinary person would face.
Whose systems do you think they’re accessing? They’re not hacking the web server to add that warning: instead, they’re waiting for it to send a reply to you and modifying it as it passes through their systems as permitted by the legal agreement you signed. This is like trying to say DoorDash should be tried for trespassing if they put a flier in your delivery.
Again, this should be illegal but I think we need strong network neutrality laws to make that so. Wishful thinking won’t save us the trouble of passing them.
More like if doordash put extra salt or spice on my food, the restaurant owner's expectation of the food's quality and integrity were violated.
With comcast,the expected privacy of the traffic by the server is violated, until delivered the content belongs to the sender. An intetmediary transports content but does not own it,has no right to manipupate it. Vandalizing other people's property is a crime everywhere,the question is does it apply to network packets in transit?
Lawyers on HN, how is this not a violation of CFAA? If I sat at a coffee shop and did the same thing (say a "harmless" js "alert('Hi everyone!');") that is punishable with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment. So you're saying if I was the ISP that's ok? Why is the FBI/DOJ not criminally prosecuting comcast's CEO? Preferential treatment or prosecutorial discretion? Will comcast start pushing back on dragnet sutveillance cooperation?
The whole thing is so crooked! How can we bring this to the attention of lawnakers and media?? If the post office put notes in your mail (outside of a law enforcement request) would it not be a big deal?