Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor 418
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 may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Funny)
Call to disconnect does not seem to work.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
A VPN? That's hiding internet traffic from them, which is precisely their problem with Tor.
Re: (Score:3)
A VPN? That's hiding internet traffic from them, which is precisely their problem with Tor.
I am sure most office workers and many small businesses are going to have a problem if Comcast starts blocking vpn traffic. Then again, use an SSL vpn instead of IPSec and I don't see how they could block it.
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't think I was trying to skirt paying, I had other more pressing bills and a lot of health issues during that time of my life.
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
The point he was trying to make is they charge you for a service call when the problem is with faulty equipment they own. It is then their responsibility to eat the labor and fuel costs to fix their problem.
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
1) Arrive within 3 days to give you a new one
2) Charge you 20-30 dollars for a "car tech visit"
3) Break it on the way out the door (yes, it happened to me)
This is OK?
(Ignoring the statement in the parent where he suggested breaking the cablemodem--that's a different issue entirely).
Full Disclosure: In my case, I was able to get the fee removed each time by calling in, because it's not my fault that their tech refused to follow clear instructions (both written on his form and from my wife), and it's not my fault that the modem was faulty.
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:5, Interesting)
This.
Comcast came out and fixed my neighbors internet ( which they managed to kill with a shovel ) by removing my very active connection from the pedestal and connecting my neighbor to it :|
When I called Comcast about it, they said it would take at least TWO WEEKS to have a tech on site to fix the problem and it would also incur a service charge for their trouble. Even though it was Comcast's fault the service went dead to begin with and I explained their tech was why it went down during the service call next door from earlier in the day.
( This axed my internet, alarm system and cable btw )
Long story short version, I went out and fixed the damn thing by isolating which homes were what at the pedestal, labeling them for the incompetent techs that Comcast hires, and attaching my neighbors to a connection point that was not in use.
Re:This may be the way to escape from Comcast (Score:4)
Where you can pay the regular bill but you can't afford to pay the penalty and reconnection fees? I believe that's called the A.S.S. hole.
Dont cancel by phone (Score:5, Informative)
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.
You don't have to sit quietly (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> 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)
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because who needs clean air, fresh water, safe food, safe working conditions, fair pay and other such "Big Government" regulations?
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, you're an idiot. You don't understand. It's not the Government God Damn Business to interfere on what I do!!! Any person should be allowed to engage into any sort of transaction with anyone else! It's a private contract between two entities!
If I want to pay my neighbor for mowing my lawn, why should the government get in the middle?
If I want to buy from comcast, I should have the right to do it if I please! I also have a right to terminate said contract whenever I please, and I can negotiate the price too.
If my neighbor wishes to die but she cannot kill herself, I could kill her provided we both agreed to!! It's our LIBERTARIAN RIGHT! If the cops find her dead, I should NOT be investigated. All I need to do is explain that we both had a VERBAL CONTRACT and that should be enough!
Cops shouldn't exist! Government shouldn't exist! I am a person and I should have the right to do anything I please with anyone, if we both wanted to.
Jesus. I don't understand the "extreme" libertarians like that. What will they do once they find out you can't really have a fair contract against a corporation (or anyone else) if there aren't laws or an arbitration system AKA "the judiciary system"?
Ah yes: The Free Market Will Solve All Those Issues®
(oopsie, no ® there. There's no government to ®)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I want to pay my neighbor for mowing my lawn, why should the government get in the middle?
Because your neighbor may destroy your neighbor on the other side of the houses property. In which you violated that persons rights.
If I want to buy from comcast, I should have the right to do it if I please! I also have a right to terminate said contract whenever I please, and I can negotiate the price too.
Again because comcast is doing crap that affects others, outside of you, and currently the government is making it so you really can only chose them as it is, which if the problem.
If my neighbor wishes to die but she cannot kill herself, I could kill her provided we both agreed to!! It's our LIBERTARIAN RIGHT! If the cops find her dead, I should NOT be investigated. All I need to do is explain that we both had a VERBAL CONTRACT and that should be enough!
Yes officer she wanted me
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK, we have places for people like you.
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Informative)
I think you Poe'd most of the people who responded to you.
Re: (Score:2)
A written, notaried contract doesn't say what the dead party's mood was at the time. It doesn't say if I bullied and blackmailed her for years and and broke her will. If I fucked up her mind so badly that she "freely" agreed to sign said contract.
If there are no laws on how a contract should be written, there
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit spreading FUD. You know the difference between Big Government "regulating" the Internet and "Big Cable" controlling the Internet? With government, you can complain on Constitutional grounds if they infringe your rights. With Comcast, you're shit out of luck!
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Insightful)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says hi.
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What do mean, "will be?" Anonymous anything is gone, because Comcast is judge, jury and executioner. Since the Bill of Rights applies to the government but not corporations (to the extent that it applies at all, but I digress...), moving internet service from corporate control to government control is a way to get anonymity back.
Sure, illegal government surveillance could continue, but that situation is already infinitely bad, so it can't get any worse.
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the ISPs already have used "Big-Government" to get paid for rolling out "broadband" service, preventing muni ISPs, and any number of other regulations that benefit them.
You worry about big government but we pretty much already have all the worst parts of government regulation with none of the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Re: (Score:3)
Let me just try to get this straight: You are opposed to government regulation of ISPs because you think that they will violate our anonymity on the internet, even though this article seems to point to the private companies that are currently unregulated disallowing online anonymity?
Does that seem like a pretty accurate description of your argument, or have I missed some subtle nuance here?
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That is one thing the Supremes have actually stood up for. They generally decide well on 1st amendment issues.
Re:So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Informative)
No, but they can reference their TOS and note preclusion against running 'servers' on residential service.
Actually, they have a few rules in their Acceptable Use Policy that specifically go after TOR: http://www.comcast.com/Corpora... [comcast.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is also covered by their AUP and explicitly listed as an OK use of XFINITY.
http://www.comcast.com/Corpora... [comcast.com]
Service at will (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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:2)
Holy fuck! You're a cannibal?!
A cannibal bank robber!
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the (other) neighbours will be back from vacation any day know.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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").
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A list of tor nodes needs to be known for tor to work. Trivial to check for connections to these nodes.
Re: (Score:3)
Which would only be other Tor nodes. All traffic on the Tor network routes through several hops before traveling through an exit node. That's the entire basis of the technology. If it was as simple as tracing back one hop, it wouldn't be very effective, would it?
Beside the point. Comcast doesn't need to know where your traffic ultimately exits. All they need to know is whether or not you're using Tor. For that purpose detecting traffic being sent to a known Tor entry node is sufficient.
Re: So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Interesting)
"Then TOR will be wrapped by a VPN service, and Comcast will be fscked."
Let's not forget that rights holders are already calling [slashdot.org] for VPN users to be assumed to be criminals. So it's far from impossible that what they're doing for TOR now, they may do for VPNs later. Sure they would have to have some sort of system to allow "approved" VPN connections, so that people who need them for work wouldn't be screwed, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Re: So-to-speak legal (Score:4, Funny)
Introducing Comcast's new ComVPN Service! All your VPN services, delivered directly from Comcast, for only the modest price of $10/month! Because at Comcast, we are always adding new services benefit you, our loyal customer!
Re: (Score:3)
"Then TOR will be wrapped by a VPN service, and Comcast will be fscked."
Let's not forget that rights holders are already calling [slashdot.org] for VPN users to be assumed to be criminals. So it's far from impossible that what they're doing for TOR now, they may do for VPNs later. Sure they would have to have some sort of system to allow "approved" VPN connections, so that people who need them for work wouldn't be screwed, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Anything's possible, especially when corporate profits are at stake. But preventing people from using VPN's seems like it would be tough in practice; not from a technological standpoint, but from a practical one. So many businesses use VPN for so much, blocking it would be a real issue. The BBC can say they want every VPN user to be considered a copyright infringer, but VPN has so may legitimate (and at this point, necessary) uses that making that argument in any serious way would be difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then TOR will be wrapped by a VPN service, and Comcast will be fscked.
Didn't you read the article? VPN is against Comcast's terms of service-- it's a proxy.
Re: So-to-speak legal (Score:5, Informative)
Then TOR will be wrapped by a VPN service, and Comcast will be fscked.
Didn't you read the article? VPN is against Comcast's terms of service-- it's a proxy.
The TOS only restricts you from running a proxy service, not for using a proxy service as a client.
Illegal to use proxy services [Re: So-to-speak le (Score:3)
Huh? It is a violation to RUN a proxy. Not USE a proxy.
Here is the text of what's forbidden, from TFA [deepdotweb.com]. Note the bold face on the word use (bold is from the original):
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can easily see that some *is* using Tor, you just can't see where they are going or what they are doing. Well, unless you are a well-funded organization with the time, equipment, and money to set up lots of exit nodes.
You don't need a lot of exit nodes. You just need to monitor the metadata. Packet sizes and time of sending together with packet sizes and time of arrival makes it possible to trace the packets well enough without decrypting them.
As long as the packet never leaves their network they can connect the decrypted packet with the original sender.
NSA gets metadata from multiple ISP's so they can probably trace all the communication they want.
Re: (Score:2)
In Comcast's world, you are guilty until proven otherwise.
Your sentence is three words longer than needed.
Quiz (Score:5, Insightful)
It is 2014 and anonymity is a crime, what country are we thinking of ?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
I find your troll verbose (Score:3)
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
-- some glib goddamned fascist, probably Benjamin Franklin
FCC 14-28 (Score:3)
This is why we need written rules for an open internet.
Locked doors (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
why? Better for Comcast to not know (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Probably Comcast cares because NSA told them they should.
Re:why? Better for Comcast to not know (Score:4, Insightful)
They care because they are content owners/producers now (NBC).
Re: (Score:2)
THIS!
Re: (Score:3)
Probably Comcast cares because NSA told them they should.
Or maybe they're thinking that content (ie netflix) can be tunneled and bypass whatever controls they have in place.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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 ?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
I don't like this ... (Score:2)
... 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)
Comcast is not a common carrier (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
continuing to charge for things not provided (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Comcast customer and occasionally a Tor user. I've never had an issue, nor have I ever been contacted by Comcast about it.
This story smells made up.
Flaw (Score:5, Funny)
The greatest flaw is that the person at the call center would understand what Tor is.
Re:Comcast says this never happened. (Score:4, Informative)
This is believable up until the sentence"Comcast doesn’t monitor users’ browser software or web surfin" which we know is false since Comcast sends out notices to people downloading pirated software, and they were in court for monitoring and blocking bittorrent traffic.
It is weird that they throw an obvious lie into what would otherwise be a nice clarifying statement that would put the issue to rest.
Re:Comcast says this never happened. (Score:4, Informative)
For the copyright alert notices, they're just forwarding on notices from the copyright holder, when the copyright holder says "hey, IP address XYZ is downloading Captain America." Comcast just sends on the notice to whomever has IP XYZ (or had it at the time in question).
While I'm certainly not willing to take their word (Score:3)
Neither am I willing to take the word of some random dude on the Internet. Barring any more proof, I don't think we should be putting any stock in this.
From reading the service agreement (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about Incognito mode? (Score:4, Funny)
It isn't an onion routed proxy network like For.
Fhe Onion Roufer?
What about Incognito mode? (Score:2)