August 14, 2013 at 02:18EFF is dissatisfied with the ban on servers from Internet providers
Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers have issued a statement regarding the “disgusting tradition of Internet service providers to ban servers.” The rules of many US providers, including Comcast, Verizon, Cox and AT&T, prohibit the installation of servers at the user. Recently , Google joined with its Google Fiber project. And this is despite the fact that Google has always advocated the principles of network neutrality.
EFF lawyers explain that problems with the “prohibition of servers” begin with the lack of a clear definition of the concept of “server”. A ban on "servers of any type" may mean that users are formally prohibited from lifting mail servers, remotely controlled media servers, SSH tunnels to access their home computers from work on their computers, Minecraft servers for playing with friends, home appliances such as Nest thermostats, that broadcast information over the Internet, you can’t even put a video nanny - a camera that takes a newborn, broadcasting a picture over the network to monitor the baby.
None of these devices can be called "harmful" to the 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 not unique to 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 applied against harmless services, or they will be applied selectively against services that the provider does not like. None of the above providers gave a specific clear definition of the concept of "server", so as not to tie their hands in case of future showdowns.
EFF lawyers write that having a ban on servers makes you wonder: why bother banning 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 you connect your home computer to a secure network. A home mail server helps to better protect mail correspondence and ensure our constitutional rights. Devices like the FreedomBox home router , designed to protect user privacy, are based on software that can be called server-based. In general, servers can be used in various smart ways, and if the ban on them is lifted, then this only contributes to innovation and better protection for users.
In the future, this problem will become more urgent, especially with the spread of IPv6, when in the absence of NAT each user can easily raise a regular web server on his computer.
“We are disappointed with Google and hope that the search giant will reconsider its decision. In the end, improving Internet access in this country is not only providing citizens with a higher speed, but also greater freedom, ”the EFF said in a statement.
EFF lawyers explain that problems with the “prohibition of servers” begin with the lack of a clear definition of the concept of “server”. A ban on "servers of any type" may mean that users are formally prohibited from lifting mail servers, remotely controlled media servers, SSH tunnels to access their home computers from work on their computers, Minecraft servers for playing with friends, home appliances such as Nest thermostats, that broadcast information over the Internet, you can’t even put a video nanny - a camera that takes a newborn, broadcasting a picture over the network to monitor the baby.
None of these devices can be called "harmful" to the 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 not unique to 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 applied against harmless services, or they will be applied selectively against services that the provider does not like. None of the above providers gave a specific clear definition of the concept of "server", so as not to tie their hands in case of future showdowns.
EFF lawyers write that having a ban on servers makes you wonder: why bother banning 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 you connect your home computer to a secure network. A home mail server helps to better protect mail correspondence and ensure our constitutional rights. Devices like the FreedomBox home router , designed to protect user privacy, are based on software that can be called server-based. In general, servers can be used in various smart ways, and if the ban on them is lifted, then this only contributes to innovation and better protection for users.
In the future, this problem will become more urgent, especially with the spread of IPv6, when in the absence of NAT each user can easily raise a regular web server on his computer.
“We are disappointed with Google and hope that the search giant will reconsider its decision. In the end, improving Internet access in this country is not only providing citizens with a higher speed, but also greater freedom, ”the EFF said in a statement.
