New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
You won't take further part in this conversation because you're wrong.
We don't change our ToS daily, you're just being stupid. It's not a dictatorship because there are always these two options: Sue us or leave. We're trying to do what is in the best interest of legitimate clients.
The fact that you do not speak native OR fluent English means that you're unable to comprehend my arguments, therefore resulting in you pulling utter BS out of your ass to use as invalid arguments. My arguments are backed by the words of legitimate legal counsel. Your arguments are fronted by your misunderstanding and are backed by nothing.
You never had a case to begin with.
Meeeeh, little jon is pissed! Leave. Jon. Alone! ;-)
But another thing: Could a moderator separate the gold (Ramnode & Iniz) from the shit and split this thread?
Interesting. Staying with you is not an option.
(Incidentally, Jon, your argument does not exactly sound ironclad either.)
@JustAMacUser - Those are the options if you disagree with our AUP and the way we choose to enforce it. We find that it is the best approach to handle AUP violations because as of this post, it still has a 100% accuracy rate.
My initial argument still stands: There is no privacy warranted due to OpenVZ virtualization not being full virtualization.
If we ever offer full virtualization VPS hosting services, we'll add that clause to our ToS which makes the customer agree to waiving their privacy rights in the case of a suspected AUP violation.
As there is no privacy warranted with our existing VPS services, the clause is therefore not needed at this time.
(Before anyone asks, we don't scan processes nor snoop dedicated servers. We don't kick people out or investigate them if they're on a dedicated server UNLESS we receive an official legal notice .. because they're not affecting other clients)
Again, these are the words of legal counsel and we'll use that argument in the case that litigation is taken against us, although highly unlikely because .. well, litigation over us deleting files that never belonged to you in the first place, and could easily torrent again at another provider? Come on.
I guess you're fortunate to not be based in a country with strict privacy laws, which by the way, in some places a person cannot waive.
Regardless, your position on this matter is clear and people can see the true colors of you and GVH; they can make their own decisions about doing business with you. I, for one, never will based on everything I've seen so far (this thread and others).
Back on topic: RamNode is a great host. I have also read great things about INIZ.
Who is this legal consultant of yours? Any contact information?
Hosting providers utilizing OpenVZ virtualization technology to provide "virtual private server" web hosting services are under no obligation to abide by data privacy laws as due to the nature of OpenVZ virtualization, the data within OpenVZ containers is sandboxed as a part of the host node, which belongs to the host.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that data within OpenVZ containers can relate to physical belongings within a private space entity that cannot be searched without a legal warrant. However, it can be argued that data within OpenVZ containers can relate to physical belongings within a publicly available area leased by a guest.
We do not abuse this ability. Everything that we do pertaining to investigating customers' virtual servers after auto process-detection (no, not from nodewatch) are in the sole best interest of our legitimate clients, proudly boasting a 100% ACCURACY RATE.
Sorry! Just couldn't resist!
I have in-person legal consultants whose contact information I prefer not to disclose due to legitimate privacy concerns for them specifically.
However, you'd think that being the host that we are we'd want more readily available resources for this kind of legal consulting. One of our staff members, George P. (who is part time / does not have an LET account) works in a law office as his primary job. Another one of our staff members, @GVH_Eric, actually minored in Law in college at quite a prestigious university.
I sought consultancy from all of my available legal resources before I made my point. Notice my confidence? Nothing I've said in this thread was pulled out of my ass with no prior thought or experience to back it up.
You can't just make up laws and suddenly they're laws. Laws for privacy in housing do not apply to server slices. A script parsing data is no worse than gmail parsing your email which they openly admit to doing, and look how many people got pissed off and how many of them are behind bars over it, if you want a real world example.
Exactly! But here's a HUGE difference: We don't do it to make money. We do it to help our clients who enjoy increased performance and more readily available resources from the abusers being removed.
Every entity is always obliged to abide by all laws within the jurisdiction in which they reside.
Anything can be argued. The fallacy of your argument is that you're literally talking about virtual private servers.
Interestingly you call them containers. I use containers around my house to store private property. My house itself is a container; inside it are other containers.
You may want to contact another law firm and get a second opinion because the more you write the more your current argument weakens. Perhaps just have your existing legal counsel post, it's possible you're simply not using the same word choices or positioning statements an actual lawyer would and that is contributing to the breakdown.
Let me explain you one thing. For example, you can put in your TOS / AUP whatever, person who send out spam will be killed by hanging.
Lets say that indeed that person send out spam, and you really kill him somehow. You will call your TOS / AUP because he agreed on that term ?
No, because it is illegal to kill someone.
Nothing more to say here...
There is no law that prohibits our activity as I've already said.
It's just a name with a limited meaning. The "private" in "virtual private server" refers to the ability for your virtual private server to be private from other users.
I call them containers because the web hosting industry and the makers of OpenVZ refer to OpenVZ VMs as "containers".
I'm just reiterating the same argument over and over with a different word choices until more people comprehend what I'm saying. Feel free to let me know if you're still not able to understand. I can use different wording that mean the same thing and throw in some analogies as well.
Anyone else?
Your argument is invalid and makes no sense.
We mention that our Terms of Service is governed by the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois. Terms that do not violate the laws of either of those entities are considered as a legal agreement upon the acceptance of the Terms by the customer.
Terms that DO violate the laws are automatically invalidated.
Ticking the "I agree" box and signing up at checkout is considered legal acceptance of valid terms in accordance with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
/sigh
This is not just how OpenVZ works. All kinds of hosting works this way. You can mount LVM snapshots and snoop through them in case of KVM or Xen virtualization. Whatever you do, with hosting "shared" hosting (Web hosting, VPS hosting, etc), the data of your customers are on your hard drives and can be read. Don't try to justify this by how OpenVZ works.
You are very very wrong. You are getting incorrect and dangerous information from your "sources".
What you're doing here is openly admitting that you are breaking the laws.
You are in great danger. It's a matter of time that this will hunt you down.
I sincerely suggest getting real advice from a real lawyer who practices IT and privacy laws.
So let me confirm something. Your "lawyers" are:
Is that right?
If you can make an argument that all hosting works that way, therefore you can make an argument that privacy doesn't exist in any virtualization. It's just that the argument for OpenVZ containers is more clear and more arguable. I'm standing firm on this.
I strongly disagree. And again, if someone decides to seek litigation after having their 50GB of illegally torrented movies wiped, they can go ahead and spend money on that and we'll gladly defend our case to the end, in the best interest of serving our legitimate clients in the sense of preserving resources for clients with a real, legal use of their service(s).
You can call me crazy, you can call me retarded, you can call me relentless .. but I know what I'm doing. I am doing what is within my right to, I am choosing to implement policies on how we as a devoted company deal with AUP violations in the best interest of our valued clients. And if my right is a wrong by the law, then that will be when your claim is right and we face consequences by the law, but until then, this is how we'll do things.
let me also point out that a client's data, even though cannot be physically moved, touched, or felt, is still considered personal property, in fact it is "intangible personal property"
@DomainBop
The whole point of why people torrent illegal things is to save money. Are those people really going to spend the money for which they can use to pay for 100x the price of the things they illegally stole .. to seek litigation in a case they have a high chance of losing, considering that we have significantly more legal and financial resources to use in a defense?
It's completely illogical @serverian
And in regards to ToR, who would really want to come right out to admit to participating in operating ToR relays .. To get likely slapped with an investigation by the FBI and a possible criminal conspiracy charge ?!
Also illogical!
@serverian isn't arguing the logic of a customer suing you, he's arguing the logic you are using to justify your actions.
Law that is applicable to situation is Data center specific. For example if you host in EU you should follow EU laws and rules.
Now lets continue to next thing. US laws AFAIK does not strictly regulate data privacy and protection but you are not allowed to search or view customer private data.
Some examples of "personal data" are: address, credit card number, bank statements, criminal record, etc.
So if client is having bank statement or having there backup of his criminal record you are NOT ALLOWED to search for anything there. As you don't know if that is case you should not enter and search for anything.
If you are following US laws here is law that you are breaking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
@drserver
That law has absolutely no relevance to the situation here. We're not a bank, financial institution, or anything similar, which that act specifically applies to.
After confirming suspicion from a process scan we vzctl into the container and run ls commands. Usually after the 2nd or 3rd command we find a massive directory filled with the illegally obtained content + the source, and that's when the termination button is hit and that's all done within like 30 seconds.
So are you saying that if we host customers in Romania, we can allow piracy and ignore DMCA? Wrong!
Which law is he breaking though? I see a lot of people talking about this law but no one has made a reference to it yet.
@jnguyen
Hey Jon. I know that you know English, so read that paragraph outloud and evaluate it.
After you done all these, please show me one law supporting that. Not a ToS or AUP, a valid law. It could even be a Zimbabwe law, I don't care which country is it. Just back your statement up.
Please show me one law stating the opposite. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, if you want to weigh in you have to actually drop some weight.
@introducial
If there is no APPLICABLE law that prohibits the activity, it is automatically legal. Go back and read about my "drinking coffee at 5AM" comment.
Why would I be obliged to that in any way? I'm just asking him to back his statement up, I didn't claim anything about this.