Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor 418

Posted by samzenpus from the no-tor-for-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes Comcast agents have reportedly contacted customers who use Tor and said their service can get terminated if they don't stop using Tor. According to Deep.Dot.Web, one of those calls included a Comcast customer service agent who allegedly called Tor an “illegal service.” The Comcast agent told the customer that such activity is against usage policies. The Comcast agent then allegedly told the customer: "Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal. We have the right to terminate, fine, or suspend your account at anytime due to you violating the rules. Do you have any other questions? Thank you for contacting Comcast, have a great day." Update: 09/15 18:38 GMT by S : Comcast has responded, saying they have no policy against Tor and don't care if people use it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor More

Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Comments Filter:

  • This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:51AM (#47907561)

    Call to disconnect does not seem to work.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:04AM (#47907687)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jade_Wayfarer ( 1741180 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:29AM (#47907911)
        Wait, why is this modded 'Funny'? You really think that they won't do it? I'm really surprised that they aren't doing it right now.

      • Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:41AM (#47908033)

        Having worked for comcasts I can say, without doubt, your services can be suspended for less than this. If you try to use the internet while suspended you'll meet the walled garden. You won't be able to free yourself until your services are restored or you use another modem provisioned by comcast with internet service.

        Comcast garuntees service to the house. Not to your modem. They garuntee the modem will work, if it's rented from them, not that it will be able to surf the internet. Everything within the house is your responsibility; which is why, unless you have their tech service plan, you are charged anywhere from 20-30 dollars for a tech visit per issue. Don't believe me? Open your cable box, remove a component or two, close your cable box, call in for troubleshooting. When they eventually conclude it is their cable box they'll send a tech. When that tech arrives and sees that the signal to the cable box is fine, he'll swap your cable box. This is a clear case of "it's your problem comcast"...even though it was crafted by you. After he reports the work completed your automatically charged a service call fee. It'll be on your next bill.

        In the end, you signed a contract and are legally bound to continue to pay for almost any type of service inturruption. Even if the tech from before fixes your service and then destroys your equipment on the way out you are still charged for service to the house. It is possible to get a refund for most of these occurences, especially the one just detailed. Take your month service charge for internet (say 50 bucks for ease) and divide it by the number of days in a month (we'll go with 30) and you'll get $1.60 for each day without service from ANY rep that answers the phone. I seriously doubt you'd get a refund for this though. Even when internet becomes an unrefuted utility you'll have a hard time selling your desire for a refund to the powers that be outside of Comcast if the reason you were disconnected was due to fraudulent activity. Come to think of it...it'd probably be pretty stupid to say anything to any governement official, in regards to this, if Comcast has not already done so.

        • In the end, you signed a contract and are legally bound to continue to pay for almost any type of service inturruption.

          Except that I didn't. When my cable was installed I signed a small receipt acknowledging that the tech had been there. I signed no contract.

          That might have been an oversight on their part, but that doesn't matter.

          Further, the KIND of contract that Comcast has customers sign is known in the legal industry as a "contract of adhesion". What that means is that it was a non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it "contract". The problem being that contract law assumes that every party is free to negotiate before s

        • Even when internet becomes an unrefuted utility you'll have a hard time selling your desire for a refund to the powers that be outside of Comcast if the reason you were disconnected was due to fraudulent activity. Come to think of it...it'd probably be pretty stupid to say anything to any governement official, in regards to this, if Comcast has not already done so.

          TOR != fradulent activity.

          TOR is about privacy. SInce when is it fradulent or illegal to use a toold that ensures your internet traffic is kept private?

    • Dont cancel by phone (Score:5, Informative)

      by voss ( 52565 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:36AM (#47907975)

      Turn in your equipment and cancel in person. Comcast has figured out if your willing to sit in their DMV like customer service center for 30-45 minutes they aint gonna keep you. Id rather sit quietly at a customer service center than try to argue with the phone guys who get paid to keep you.

      • This situation is what belch and fart smartphone apps are for.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by TheCarp ( 96830 )

        > try to argue with the phone guys who get paid to keep you.

        Not only this, but they LIE to keep you as well.

        They talked my mother into phone service, they send the modem, we swap it out, it steals the public IP address which breaks my personal VPN setup (since the home box is the one I connect to). So we send it back, cancel the new service, and keep the old box. Fine.

        A year later they try again, she brings the phone to me, I tell them it doesn't work and why, they say "oh thats fine, you can keep using

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:51AM (#47907567)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nerrd ( 1094283 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:57AM (#47907617)
      They're not a utility - they damn well can terminate service for any reason.

      • Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thaylin ( 555395 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:58AM (#47907637)
        For now, hopefully that will change soon.

    • Does it matter? What is the client going to do? Lobby more than Comcast?

      Laws are what protects lawmaker employers from mere people, not the other way around.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guygo ( 894298 )
      It's the State of Comcast. They have no such niceties as "innocent until proven guilty". They can do whatever they want, because they own everybody who could possibly be effective in trying to do something about them. So let's let them swallow Time-Warner, too! All hail Comcast!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Nyder ( 754090 )

      Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.

      They have no evidence of you doing anything illegal, they cannot prove that everyone using Tor is a criminal, but even the hint of suspicion is apparently enough for them to cancel your subscription. I must ask, however, if such behaviour is "so-to-speak legal?"

      I'm surprised they haven't came after me for using a VPN.

    • Comcast is a private sector business. Just as a subscriber can choose to stop subscribing to Comcast service, Comcast can make a business decision to stop doing business with any subscriber unless it is bound by a specific provision in its franchise contract with the city.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geogob ( 569250 )

      I would sue them for defamation, if I were one of their Tor-using customer.

      It's a grave offence to imply someone is engaged in criminal activity, without actually having evidence of such activity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tinytim ( 25110 )

        They have evidence - the Tor usage.

        It's not proof, and it's definitely not convincing evidence, but it's evidence to them.

        To put it another way: if you're found not-guilty in court, the evidence is still called evidence.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geogob ( 569250 )

          I use a car every they. I guess that makes me a bank robber. You know, could use it as a get away car.

          My neighbor also suspect me of murder an cannibalism. He saw me through the kitchen window with a butcher knife and used the BBQ the whole summer. Furthermore, the other neighbors haven't been seen since beginning of the vacation period. All hard evidence...

          Seriously, I don't know if you were trying to be funny or sarcastic... but I hope it was either one of those.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        I would sue them for defamation, if I were one of their Tor-using customer.

        It's a grave offence to imply someone is engaged in criminal activity, without actually having evidence of such activity.

        And in what public venue did they announce this scurrilous rumor?
        And what are the actual damages that you suffered from said announcement (and being butthurt is not a valid damage)
        And assuming that you can satisfy the above, how much $$ do you have upfront to pay for a lawyer to take on your defamation case?

        You may get the EFF interested, but I don't think that the case would even go anywhere unless there was actual damages involved.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by geogob ( 569250 )

          I understand that in most states, no proof of damage must be given. In many states, the statement itself suffices. An audience is not necessary.

          But hey, IANAL. And especially defamation legislation is tricky in the US. Regardless I would press charges (which is more accurately said than "sue them").

    • It may depend on the state, consumer protection is much better in some states than others i.e. "void where prohibited". So parts of Comcast's boiler plate TOS may not be enforceable in some states. But in my opinion this kind of strong arm behavior is reprehensible and limits on what services a person is able to run on his connection should not be legal. Although I would say that if one person was doing something with his or her connection that used so much bandwidth that everyone in the neighborhood was be

  • Quiz (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AftanGustur ( 7715 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:56AM (#47907611) Homepage
    Human rights for 100 points:

    It is 2014 and anonymity is a crime, what country are we thinking of ?

    • Human rights for 100 points:
      It is 2014 and anonymity is a crime, what country are we thinking of ?

      BWAMP-BWAMP! What is Soviet Nazi America?

      I'll take 'He said she said' for 500 Alex.

      Seriously, why is this article having to say, "reportedly" and "allegedly" so many times, and drone on into the mockery of the Comcast agent's conversation? We all know that Comcast is shit, and there's nothing that can be done about it, other than stopping the use of their product, and/or all of comcast's employees striking - and no one's willing to do that (for some reason). I guess it's just Monday at slashdot?

    • The canonical troll for all 21st century privacy stories is:

      If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.

      -- some glib goddamned fascist, probably Benjamin Franklin

  • FCC 14-28 (Score:3)

    by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @08:59AM (#47907653) Homepage

    This is why we need written rules for an open internet.

  • Locked doors (Score:5, Funny)

    by kruach aum ( 1934852 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:05AM (#47907697)

    People with doors that can be locked are often engaged in activities that are not, so-to-speak "legal". As a result we will no longer mortgage houses that have locks.

    • Many crimes have been committed through the centuries, yet one thing has always been a constant: The perpetrator was breathing oxygen. I move that we ban oxygen, then ration it out on a "not-comitting-a-crime" basis. After all, consuming oxygen is a hallmark of criminals. Do YOU want to support their criminal agendas?

      • Did you know that the bodies of every criminal, unindicted, indicted, convicted, ALL OF THEM, are riddled with dihydrogen monoxide? ALL OF THEM. Their bodies are so heavily contaminated with the stuff that around 50% of their weight is this insidious substance!

        We must BAN this potion of malefaction, this great insanity drug, this terrible criminal enabler!

        If you're not a criminal, you have no need to pollute your body with this stuff. If your body is already polluted, purify yourself before it's too late!

    • Re:Locked doors (Score:4, Funny)

      by freezin fat guy ( 713417 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:48AM (#47908119)
      Also, people who spy on others are often engaged in activities that are not, so-to-speak "legal".

  • why? Better for Comcast to not know (Score:5, Interesting)

    by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:10AM (#47907755) Journal

    This raises the question of why Comcast would care. For many years at least, the conventional wisdom among service providers and other carriers was that they'd prefer to NOT know what a customer uses the service for. If the ISP doesn't, and can't, know which sites customers are visiting, they can't be held responsible either legally or in regards to PR. I was shopping for a colo facility for the backup service I offer and the contract for one facility said "no porn". That was a definite deal-breaker for me - I most definitely do not want to look at what my customers are having backed up, and therefore become responsible for it. It would be a huge waste of my time to deal with any copyright violations, verify age reqirements, etc so the business is better off not know what the bits are. Just store the bits (or transfer them, in Comcast's case). That would save Comcast a bunch of money compared to monitoring and therefore needing to moderate the content.

    • Re:why? Better for Comcast to not know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Exitar ( 809068 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:15AM (#47907805)

      Probably Comcast cares because NSA told them they should.

    • This raises the question of why Comcast would care.

      Probably because (in their view) Tor is a huge waste of bandwidth: connections are not direct, but have to go through N different intermediate peers (which could all be Comcast subscribers).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rich0 ( 548339 )

        Well, they don't care if the connections even go through one tier - it is data they'd prefer to not be carrying.

        Also, the connections are encrypted, which means they can't see what is going on inside and sell data about that to others, and they can't inject ads into it either. That means that unlike regular web traffic they can't profit from it on the side. They also have no idea where it is ultimately going, so they can't selectively downgrade connections and extort more money from whoever is providing t

        • The solution could be if Comcast could be paid for every MB that they carry.
          Then Tor may actually become lucrative for Comcast.

          Another advantage of the pay-for-use pricing model.

    • Re:why? Better for Comcast to not know (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:41AM (#47908031) Homepage

      This raises the question of why Comcast would care.

      Excellent question. There are a few things that an ISP can reasonably complain to a customer about:

      * Excess use of bandwidth (I am not going to discuss what 'too much' is)

      * Loss of IP address reputation, by this I mean getting their IP range blacklisted by spamming, etc

      * Using up too much of their admin time. This might include dealing with copyright/DMCA type requests (again not interested here in rights/wrongs)

      So, 2 reasons for wanting to know (roughly) what content a customer is moving. But these go away with TOR since the TOR IP addresses have nothing to do with the ISP, so they should not care. So what other reasons are there ?

      * Requests from FBI/NSA/... that they comply with, willingly or otherwise

      * Want to know what a customer is doing so that they can profile them to better monitise the customer (eg sell more targetted adverts)

      Anything else ?

    • This raises the question of why Comcast would care. For many years at least, the conventional wisdom among service providers and other carriers was that they'd prefer to NOT know what a customer uses the service for. If the ISP doesn't, and can't, know which sites customers are visiting, they can't be held responsible either legally or in regards to PR.

      The answer is simple: Comcast has caught on to the fact that there are enough corporatists and totalitarians in Congress who want to gargle their balls that

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by punkr0x ( 945364 )
      Comcast the ISP is part of a large media corporation including NBC and Universal Studios. They have an interest in protecting their copyrights, as well as protecting traditional cable subscriptions. This is why they are one of the lowest rated companies in the country, they are more focused on advancing other pieces of the corporation than providing customer service. What are you going to do, switch to a competitor?

  • ... it's "he said, she said."

    Let's post it again when we have obtained the consumer's recording of the phone calls.

  • Prove it (Score:3)

    by rebelwarlock ( 1319465 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:32AM (#47907931)
    Comcast is exclusively run by assholes, but I'm not seeing any proof of this statement. People shouldn't get all up in arms about this claim until there's some evidence. I'm sure as hell not going to take some random asshole's word on it - I wouldn't even trust him to tell me if it's raining outside or not.

  • Comcast is not a common carrier (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So is this clear proof that Comcast is claiming it is not a common carrier?
    A common carrier transports packets and does not care what is in the packets.

  • Fuck off Comcast (Score:3)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:53AM (#47908179) Journal
    which about sums it up.

  • continuing to charge for things not provided (Score:3)

    by mr_mischief ( 456295 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @09:54AM (#47908199) Journal

    Hey, Comcast, continuing to charge me for a modem lease fee when I'm not leasing your piece of crap modem is not so-to-speak "legal". So why after dealing with your customer disservice personnel twice are you continuing to charge me an $8 a month fee for something you can't so-to-speak "legally" charge me?

    This company needs to wither and die. The problem is the only other realistic choice where I live is AT&T. If I move across town I can get Time Warner who is almost as bad and about to be just as bad with the merger.

    The public service commissions and the municipalities that grant them buildout rights are the only way to deal with this crap, as the FCC has proven useless.

  • Comcast says this never happened. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nonesuch ( 90847 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @10:00AM (#47908297) Homepage Journal
    Via DSLreports [dslreports.com]:

    I reached out to Comcast and was told by spokesman Charlie Douglas that the report is "wildly inaccurate."

    "The anecdotal chat room evidence provided is not consistent with our agents’ messages and is not accurate," said Douglas. "Per our own internal review, we have found no evidence that these conversations took place, nor do we employ a Security Assurance team member named Kelly.

    Douglas proceeded to state that "Comcast doesn’t monitor users’ browser software or web surfing and has no program addressing the Tor browser. Customers are free to use their Xfinity Internet service to visit any website or use it however they wish otherwise

  • From reading the service agreement (Score:3)

    by hAckz0r ( 989977 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @10:28AM (#47908639)
    They can prevent you from allowing others to connect into a service you are providing. Public Tor servers (aka entry/exit nodes) would thus be against the user agreement and likely result in termination of services. Running the client portion should not run afoul of that agreement. (ianal)

    They would first need to prove illegal activity is happening, and that would be difficult, but then there are known exploits for some Tor applications that can be used to leak data which can give away this kind of evedence of your activity. The question is, would they go through the trouble to inject these exploits into your system so that they can find out what you are doing? Like unsecured DNS, or injections of web bugs into your open http traffic. That sounds illegal to me, and a clear invasion of privacy. Privacy is exasctly the reason for using Tor in the first place, so don't expect those kinds of users to sit back and say nothing when terminated.

  • Dear Comcast, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LoyalOpposition ( 168041 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @10:28AM (#47908641)

    Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.

    Dear Comcast,

              I notice that your customer list, vendor list, inter-company agreements, and engineering drawings are concealed. Why are you committing illegal acts?

    ~Loyal

  • Solution (Score:4, Informative)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @10:28AM (#47908645) Homepage

    The solution is not to cancel your Comcast service (assuming you live in the United States in many of the places with no legitimate competition).

    The solution is to record your phone calls (when legal). For Android, my dad uses https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]

    Then post your calls online (instead of transcripts).

    Lastly, and this is the important part: call your local utility regulation board.

    Don't forget: you are not the customer, the utility regulation board is the customer, you are just the one paying.

  • Illegal Service? (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @10:48AM (#47908821)

    The TOR protocol was developed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory to protect secure government online communications. So when a Comcast rep contacts you, ask him what business they have intercepting secure communications channels. And then ask him for his name and current location and request that he remain there until FBI agents can respons to his location. Then hang up.

  • Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:3)

    by Alarash ( 746254 ) on Monday September 15, 2014 @10:48AM (#47908833)
    Isn't this exactly what guilty until proven innocent is?

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Close