VoIP Terms of Service May Surprise You 285
rabtech writes "If you are thinking of ditching a land-line for a VOIP provider such as Vonage or Net2Phone, you might want to think again. Software "End User license Agreements" have gotten a lot of attention in the past over their onerous and restrictive terms, but who would expect such things from your phone company? The prime example is Vonage, which states among other things that 'If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material, as well as your communications with Vonage and your personally identifiable information to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution and you hereby consent to such forwarding.'" (Read more below.)
"Don't forget the obligatory 'we can change these terms of service whenever we like and they become effective immediately when posted to our website.' Read for yourself here(1), here(2), and here(3). I won't put up with this kind of thing in my software and I certainly won't put up with it from my phone company!"
BT (Score:2)
Re:BT (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BT (Score:3, Informative)
> the UK.
Is that a tin-foil hat? Certainly sounds like one.
*ALL* phone companies will *always* work actively with the government. This is just them covering their back so you don't sue them if any legal action against you fails.
Re:BT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BT (Score:2)
No, the
Scary (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
During a television interview with Patrick Norton on what used to be TechTV. The head of the NSA had revealed that following 9/11 various "Random" phone calls are being monitored, using a monitoring system that is triggered by keywords, that are used during the phone conversation.
Re:Scary (Score:3, Insightful)
"Random" phone calls are being monitored, using a monitoring system that is triggered by keywords, that are used during the phone conversation
Umm, if the "monitoring" is triggered by spoken keywords, then they must already be "monitoring" in order to detect the keywords.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
I'm sure this gives them a big stick to chase customers around with, but I doubt they'd ever let a case get to court where their TOS
Re:Scary (Score:5, Informative)
These are the 'restrictions' they're talking about. What they're saying here is that if you're using their equipment for criminal purposes, and if they know about it, they have the right to terminate your service, call the cops, and tell 'em what they know. I don't see how they have a lot of choice about this: if they did anything else, they'd open themselves up to all sorts of liability.
But it doesn't mean that they're going to monitor all your conversations or drop the hammer when you call your bookie. According to their privacy policy:
They also tell you in their privacy policy that they might use your data in ways you might not like: i.e. tell the cops who you are and where you live:
This should come as no surprise to anyone, and any phone company would do the same thing. But what the phone company can (and must) do is well established in both our culture and our laws. Vonage, which for many purposes would probably prefer not to be considered a phone company, is offering a relatively new kind of service, and they really need to make these things explicit.
There's a lot of pressure on the FCC right now to regulate VOIP providers and make them make their networks easily tappable by law enforcement agencies. That's not entirely unreasonable... you don't want drug dealers and terrorists to have an untappable, portable, fast, cheap communications system with fixed cost long distance to boot.
Our role as citizens that have some understanding of the tech involved is to make sure our representatives know that for tapping purposes, law enforcement should treat VOIP just like POTS service. Essentially, they should have to jump through exactly the same hoops in order to get permission to tap VOIP that they do to tap POTS or cell service.
Re:Scary (Score:3, Informative)
I find the word 'authorized' odd. The previous clause said 'required'. As though they'll do it if they are allowed, not just when forced.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
You might also be aware that the terms of service trump the privacy policy. Oh, and they can change the terms of service anytime they like in any way they like and you have no say in the matter. And they don't have to notify you. If you disagree with the terms, you are still on the hook for
Privacy etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tin foil hats anyone....
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Storage is somewhere around a buck a gig, so that means I could store a thousand average calls for about a buck.
Let's say that everyone in the country makes five 'average' calls a day. That's 250 million people, or about 1.25 billion calls a day.
In terms of just storage, archiving every one of those calls would probably cost about 1.25 million/day, or about 500 million a year. We spend that much in Iraq every couple of DAYS.
Now, there are going to be scaling problems with addressing this much data, and it wouldn't be this cheap, but if our government really wanted to do this, they *could*. It's feasible, although costly, to do TODAY... and in five years, it'll be a lot cheaper.
And look at it from a smaller perspective... if Vonage is handling a hundred thousand calls a day, they could easily archive an entire day onto ONE HARD DRIVE.
It's not nearly as tinfoil-hattish as you seem to think.
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:3, Informative)
In order to do this, they spend money on storage costs because they're required to. That it is "bad business practice" is neither here nor there, they have no choice, because the government noted that it was "technologically feasible" without considering was it "r
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2, Interesting)
So if there is no processing then the storage increases (at least) by about a factor of 4 to nearly $5 million a day or $1.8 billion a year. That's a ton of cash to spend on something that may only have about 0.01% of "usable" information to the evil government.
And we're still
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. I'd have to take issue with that. In small, independent, non-redundant systems storage might be as little as $1/GB.
If you're building a large SAN or storage farm, there won't be a "little" overhead. Rather, the chances are the actual storage cost will be a small part of the overall costs of space, power, maintainance, administration, monitoring, legal compliance and BACKUPS.
I'd be gobsmacked if it was less than $5/GB to start out with a storage farm (and unsurprised if it was ten times that), and I couldn't give you a running cost per GB but I wouldn't be surprised if it was several bucks per year.
Even our storage server at work, which only has 830GB of usable storage (1.7TB raw storage) cost a lot more than a buck a gig. Closer to $10/GB, in fact. Admittedly we didn't buy well and didn't buy at a good time, but even so that's for slow, cheap storage.
Looking at, say, raw 2TB NAS devices advertised, they seem to go for between US$6000 and US$10000 - and that's initial purchase of a standalone device, not counting any of the above costs. That's also an SATA based unit, and most won't really fit well in large, complex storage networks.
If you start talking SAN gear, well ... you'd need to put the price in $/GB to stop your eyes falling out ;-)
Here's a link that might be interesting: SAN Case study [storagepipeline.com]:
Even if we allow for the questionable wisdom of analysts, I think the quoted article is fairly belivable. It also reflects my extrapolation of my own experience of storage management.
I'm not claiming that your scenario is impossible (though I think you've totally neglected the processing costs and need for pre-downprocessing temporary storage of all that audio), just that it'd cost a LOT more than you describe.
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
What prompted my post was the great(-great?) grandparent post about tinfoil hats. This wasn't meant as an exhaustive study, just an observation that it'
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2)
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:2, Interesting)
> through Vonage's network -- is why I think it's crazy people are so gung-ho
> about unregulated 'phone' service. Just one more sacrificial lamb to the
> information economy.
Just one more reason to encrypt your phone calls.
Re:Privacy etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry folks (Score:5, Insightful)
How often do you read all the ToS? (Score:5, Interesting)
What really bothers me is people who do not recognize that this is the cornerstone of democracy (a healthy debate).
Re:Sorry folks (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't email- inherently insecure. This is voice communications. Voice communications that recently began the trek to being legislated as such...with 911, taxes, etc.
Wake up and smell the coffee. There are plenty of places people would like to "take a stand" but it's kind of hard to take a stand against million dollar corporations who really don't give a shit. We need to collectively stand up and say(legislate) you can't do this and must do this....because if we DONT, they WONT. It's that simple. Corporations do not care about people.
Re:Sorry folks (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other massive corporations waiting to prvide such services!
Actually, people need to be protected from other people - more harm is caused by a few rich idiotic customers than lousy products.
-
Re:Sorry folks (Score:3, Interesting)
No no, if we want this sort of thing to stop, better to nip it in the bud before it becomes a culture.
Re:Sorry folks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry folks (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's work hard to dispel another illusion. We do _NOT_ need to be protected from massive corporations. What we need is for our politicians to _STOP_ protecting big corporations from us.
A technical difference of words, maybe, but it illustrates the fact that we do not function in a free market in the US. We have thousands and thousands of rules and regulations on our free market and all of those rules and regulations require a financial budget and a legal team to enforce. Our free market is thus skewed in favor of large corporations and against the interest of the individual citizens.
We need to collectively stand up and say(legislate) you can't do this and must do this
What we need is to _REMOVE_ all the protecting legislation which is supposed to protect us but, because of monetary fact, only protects corporations.
Re:Sorry folks (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an interesting viewpoint. I'd agree with it to an extent, but I also think that, for example, worker safety laws are pretty damn important. Businesses will intimidate and take advantage of employees and customers if there aren't consequences to those actions.
I heard an interesting report about the towing industry just last night. Apparently, in the Baltimore
Re:Sorry folks (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternative is that the worker has to prove that it was the employer's fault.
I've heard numerous stories about employers who mandate the use of safety precautions, but fire anybody who actually follows th
Re:Sorry folks (Score:3, Interesting)
It might well be better to get rid of the semi-personhood status of corporations. Either go back to their being something other than "people". Or treat them entirely as "people", including being jailed if they break the law and subject to compulsary medical treatment if they are diagnosed as insane...
Re:Sorry folks (Score:2)
If only the customers had stood up to onerous EULAs, the s/w industry might be in a different shape today.
-
Re:Sorry folks (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the US a democracy? (Score:2)
I believe that there are cases where the principal that governs a republic - that the welfare of the individual should be upheld by society despite the view of the masses - should basically hold sway over all public goods and services. Further, I would say that sticking that line in a EULA somewhere violates that protection.
You're basically saying, "sorry, it doesn't work that way, their conduct is dependant soley on our monetary votes.
Re:Is the US a democracy? (Score:2)
Also, any country that calls itself a democratic republic is actually trying to hide the fact that it's a brutal dictatorship.
Re:Is the US a democracy? (Score:2)
It's not exactly written in stone, is it? [williampmeyers.org]
The key is that in a pure democracy, a rule by the people that ISN'T a republic in any form, the rights of the individual are not protected. In a republic there are certain matters where everyone's voice doesn't actually count.
Re:Sorry folks (Score:2)
Remember. (Score:2)
If the 'free'market saves a person some money, at the expensive of a company, that's BAD and means laws have to be passed to stop it.
Re:Sorry folks (Score:2, Interesting)
how often does anyone read the complete terms and conditions? bitching about them especially on places like slashdot is a useful service. It's not like you can type bad press and a company name into google and find out exactly where the agreement stitches up the user/subscriber
Bitch away and forewarn people of dodgy conracts before they sign one.
This is why I use callVantage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is why I use callVantage (Score:2)
legality (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:legality (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but I'm sure there are those who have the time to make false complaints against you thereby causing your telco to zip up your phone convo's and forward them to the FBI.
Re:legality (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because something is legal today doesn't mean that it will be legal tomorrow. So, today they record and monitor voice and data traffic "for our safety". Tomorrow, suppose it is illegal to read something like slashdot, or that it becomes illegal to say certain words. The most likely example is that fair use rights will be minimized until they are practically non-existant.
Yes, those are somewhat far-fetched examples, but I hope it gets the point across. Every day, it seems, new laws are passed. Some may be good, others, such as the DMCA, are much more questionable. Sure, today nothing you do is illegal, so of course you have nothing to hide. But, can you be sure that tomorrow won't come and new laws make you a criminal? At the current rate, eventually everyone will be a criminal to one degree or another.
The laws are so numerous and cover so many details that it sometimes becomes virtually impossible to follow all of them. Take for instance the roads in cities like San Francisco that ban vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVW [msn.com]. This includes just about all full size SUVs, not to mention the big pickup trucks. Most people would not realize the signs apply to their SUVs. They didn't set out with the intent to break the law, they were just driving down the street.
So, the next time someone says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care
Re:Censored or Mindfucked? What's better? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason why the U.S. Constitution once protected citizens from unlimited government power is that such power can and will be abused. When unlimited power can be abused, you are no longer secur
Re:legality (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing new. (Score:4, Informative)
By a vote of 5-0, the FCC said "Voice over Internet Protocol," or VoIP, providers should be subject to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which ensures that law enforcers will be able to keep up with changing communications technologies.
The law does not apply to Internet-based communications but VoIP providers such as Vonage must comply because they are likely to replace much traditional phone service, the commission said.
The Justice Department, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have argued that they must be able to monitor suspicious calls no matter how they are made and have pushed the FCC to adopt rules so they will always have access.
Technology advocates have worried that the fast-growing service, which promises to slash costs by routing phone calls over the Internet, could be harmed by excessive regulation.
The ruling does not affect other pending regulatory questions surrounding VoIP service, such as how it should be taxed, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said.
"Our tentative conclusion, while correct, is expressly limited to the requirements of the CALEA statute and does not indicate a willingness on my part to find that VoIP services are telecommunications services," Powell said at a commission meeting.
Several commissioners said this attempt to avoid larger regulatory questions weakened the legal argument underpinning the ruling, though they all voted to support it.
"There are less roundabout ways to achieve this result than the collection of tentative conclusions we offer here, and there are better ways to build a system that will guarantee judicial approval," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat.
The ruling does not apply to "non-managed" VoIP services like Skype, which have more in common with file-trading networks like Kazaa than traditional phone networks.
Skype offers "peer to peer" software that allows users to talk directly with each other rather than going through pathways set up by the carrier.
Separately, the FCC ruled that commercial "push to talk" services offered by wireless providers like Nextel Communications Inc. would be subject to CALEA.
The ruling on "push to talk" services is final, but the FCC will accept further public comments before making its ruling on VoIP final.
The FCC has yet to determine how long VoIP carriers need to comply with wiretap laws, and whether outside companies can manage compliance for these carriers.
VoIP carriers offer subscribers a low monthly fee for nationwide calls and discount rates for international connections.
Major traditional carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T Corp. have launched VoIP offerings to match services offered by independent start-ups like Vonage.
Research firm Gartner Inc. estimates that 17 percent of North American phone lines will be replaced with VoIP lines by 2008.
-- Reuters [reuters.com]
click/shrinkwrap licenses (Score:4, Interesting)
They're a little dated, but for more information, check out these links at the Consumer Project on Technology [cptech.org]:
UCITA [cptech.org]
Questionable Licenses [cptech.org]
And here's a link to an old
Slashdot | Questionable EULA's [slashdot.org]
Money or privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Money or privacy? (Score:2, Interesting)
For security, I can understand why, but, to give up your rights for cheaper phone calls????
Re:Money or privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Money or privacy? (Score:2)
Are you willing to give up 911 service? (Score:5, Informative)
In other news, for those of us using Mac OS X and Safari-- remember, whenever they give you obnoxiously long terms of service to read, use the "Summarize" service.
Re:Are you willing to give up 911 service? (Score:2)
Is it so hard to pre-program your phone with the fire dept, police dept, and hospital into your friggen speed dial?
Then you don't *need* 911.
Steven V.
That's to be expected, isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
(a) Companies trying to cover their own back: Litigation is best avoided, so any responsibility will be pushed towards the customer - or at least away from the company.
(b) Profit: If they can "sneak in" terms that allow them to profit from *your* details, then they will try. Or at least, they don't want to be in a situation where they *cannot* do so, so they are better off asking for your concent first.
(c) Law Enforcement Agencies: Even if the agencies do not explicitly ask the providers for ease of tapping (perhaps they do? I dunno), they still think of voip as a telephone alternative, hence the same rules apply.
Really, this isn't so different from the EULAs from email providers, is it?
After all, if you want to keep things secret, ENCRYPT THEM : http://www.gnupg.org
Just my 2p...
Shouldn't hurt future sales too much (Score:2, Insightful)
Because of this I can't really say that I blame companies l
Shop Around (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the change at anytime clause's legal (Score:2)
Of course nowadays anything might be possible, but I'm pretty
Re:I don't think the change at anytime clause's le (Score:2)
I think US contract law allows them to do anything they like as long as the majority of consumers are kept at a financial level that a challenge is simply impossible.
Re:I don't think the change at anytime clause's le (Score:2)
You said 2) that the termination must be mutual and then you said "They decided they would rather loose your business".
If as you claim, the termination must be mutual, than that means they do not have the right to loose your business, they must keep their original contract.
Re:I don't think the change at anytime clause's le (Score:2)
Patriot Act (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you expect?? (Score:4, Interesting)
These pioneers exist on the forefront of legal boundaries. A few years ago there was debate about whether foreign countries selling goods over the internet were bound by laws at the point of purchase or the location of the vendor. [accc.gov.au]
VOIP have the same problem of uncertain legal comeback. What happens if you're making a call to/through China, and Beijing wants to have a listen? A major international dispute could erupt, and these companies don't want to be caught in the middle. These laws haven't even solidied in any one country, let alone across borders
It's not that they want to be Big Brother, it's just if Uncle Sam comes asking, they've let you know that they could hand over the information.
If a Vonage conversation trapped a paedophile who was grooming children, that's a pretty darn good argument for handing over the evidence. Maybe [the tapping] not legal in some countries, but what about others?
People who know how to construct tin foil hats should use encryption, plain and simple.
Re:What do you expect?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course! Think of the children! I expect politicians to trot this out every time they're eroding our rights. I fear for the Republic when ordinary citizens start doing so.
Re:What do you expect?? (Score:2)
The masses are sheep. I expect them to jump at shadows.
Of course 'terrorists' are the latest fade fear. My sister in law calls my wife every time something 'terrorist' related happens. She called when a 21 yr old took a plane joy riding [chron.com] into powerlines. She called when a Military Hummer [go.com]was stolen. She calls all the time with thes
Re:What do you expect?? (Score:2, Funny)
I for one am trying very hard not to think of the children.
-- Michael Jackson
Re:What do you expect?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever think parents should start being responsible for their kids 24/7 instead of just letting them IM, e-mail, or meet Joe Pedophile? Nah that's too easy, let's invade everyone's privacy instead.
Re:What do you expect?? (Score:2)
Ok first of all, how are paedophiles currently caught? If they are caught without having to tap VoIP phone calls, then I fail to see any reason for Vonage's TOS to be any different from a regular telco. And if they are currently not caught very easily, I fail to see how tapping somebody's phone going to help. Ok but suppose tapping somebody's phone does help - it stil
Re:What do you expect?? (Score:2)
It's a crappy argument since I have yet, in my 29 blessed years on this planet, to see evidence that a wiretap has tipped authorities off to someone that they hadn't already identified through conventional, less Big Brother style means. Once. All I'm asking is once. Show me _ONE TIME_ when spying on our own citizens has prevented a crime. There are hundreds of instan
The above restrictions (Score:5, Insightful)
1.3.1 Prohibited Uses You agree to use the Service and Device only for lawful purposes. This means that you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any communication or material of any kind when in Vonage's sole judgment the transmission, receipt or possession of such communication or material (i) would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or (ii) encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law....If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions etc etc.
So not only do you have to avoid criminal actions, you also have to avoid civil liability. And Vonage can, of course, use their "sole discretion" to decide what is and is not illegal / slanderous / whatever.
People will call this a tinfoil hat case, because in practice, Vonage will not have the resources to spy on people and turn them in if they say something bad. But that sounds very much like security through obscurity. The government and corporations are building a society where privacy can be violated at will. Sure, 99% of people will be unaffected, but then most Soviets weren't picked up by the KGB, and most Iraqis weren't arrested by Saddam Hussein's mob. The "if you've nothing to hid, you've nothing to fear" argument carries much weight with the general public -- as if no innocent people have ever been harmed by their government!
Re:The above restrictions (Score:3, Interesting)
I side with you but there's a legal squirrel in the whole business which comes from the 4th Amendment
Re:The above restrictions (Score:2)
And not just the cops. Remember the civil liability.
You are comparing a phone company's ToS to fascist dictators that engaged in genocide.
I'm not. But the potential for fascist dictatorship is greatly increased if individual privacy is thrown away. If we create a culture where individual rights are not respected, we make it easier for government and corporate abuse to happen in the future. I don't believe that
I am not concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
The Department of Justice would be all over Vonage if VoIP services were being used by criminals or even worse by 'terrorists.'
It wasn't until recently that the fcc ruled VoIP must be tappable. [slashdot.org] Give them some more time. They might change their TOS in light of this FCC ruling.
People are overreacting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Courts tend to take most EULAs with a grain of salt - they frown on "legally binding agreements" where one party can not alter the terms of the agreement. The main logic here is... let's say a corporation you're subscribed to offers a new service, and retroactively changes the TOS to abide by the rules applicable to that given service. Say that the added clause is, "our constituents, lessees of a
Can anyone clarify? (Score:2)
I have to admit haven't managed to find the section the a
Don't worry, they're not a phone company (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't worry, they're not a phone company (Score:2)
Ah. Their only product is the delivery of voice calls and faxes, using... um... telephones. But they're not a telephone company.
They're not! They're "The Broadband Phone Company!"
Re:Don't worry, they're not a phone company (Score:2)
As I said in another post in this story, the matter of regulation swings both ways. It protects you while costing you a little more money. This is one of those events that point
Encryption. (Score:2)
What about transparent end-point to end-point encryption over VoIP? Not part of the VoIP standard(s)? If not, why?
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure that they do not sit and listen and record content of calls all day long. They do however drop in from time to time to examine quality and misuse (misuse being defined as anyone who knowing tries to circumvent restrictions or steals access). Phone companies already do the same thing and have done so for years. I know, I have worked for one.
This "news" is simply more propoganda created by the makers of tin foil. Damnit they must be rich.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
I'm sure you don't mind of some weird techician stumbles about you have phone-xxx with your GF or you talking to your doctor about [emberassing disease XYZ]. And I'm sure that NEVER EVER might one of them be tempted to record your emberrasing conversation and post it on the internet...
To spell it out: Invasion in your privacy is BAD. And this is a serious invasion in your privacy.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Is that really true?
While it may work if Section 1.3.1 was by itself, it's not the only thing in the document. Section 6.2 describes the Governing Law under the "agreement", being either New Jersey or appropriate Canadian law. As a result, you can't exactly be sure whether or not Vonage will forward the information to authorities when you break some obscure New Jersey law. (Note that the critical Section 1.3.1 also includes Civil liability
you think that's bad? (Score:2, Informative)
Under this Title, information on private citizens' credit card purchases, telephone calls, banking transactions, and travel patterns could be compiled and used to assemble a "profile" which might mark innocent people as terrorist suspects if their "profile" matches that of a known or suspected operative. [pfaw.org]
Privatizing this is the next obvious step. Big Brother is watching.
This is to combat fraud (Score:2)
We run into credit card fraud often enough and we're so sick of it that make every effort to report the fraud to the credit card compan
Price Changes (Score:3, Informative)
I just happened to notice that their international call rates from Canada to Asia and Europe went up the other day -- still only a few cents per minute, but 5c/min --> 8c/min is a 60% increase! -- and they didn't mention this to customers (not as a note at the bottom of the bill, not as a note on their website, no notification at all).
P2P underground (Score:2)
I love arbitration clauses even more. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's your point again?? (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance "in its sole discretion believes" could mean literally anything. Belief means anything and nothing. Do you believe in WMD?
Maybe Vonage - without any evidence - believe you look at children "the wrong way". Who knows? The language is so broad that this easily fits.
Then the language doesn't mention (although the choice of words implies) that this is about law enforcement. Maybe you
Re:Prices (Score:3, Interesting)
- Unlimited calling anywhere in SE PA and SW NJ
- Voicemail
- Enhanced Caller ID (I can assign personalized names to incoming numbers)
- Call Hunting (send call to cell if I don't pick up at home)
- Multi-Ringing (ring home, cell, and work all at the same time)
- Anonymous Call Block
- Telemarketer Block
- Call Filters (send call from mom to cell, send call from Joe to work)
- Distinctive Ringing
- Call Forward
- Three way calling
- 200 minutes long distance
for $14.99 a month. No taxes or
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow this does not seem like terrorism to me... Which is the trouble with laws like the patriot act they WILL be abused by people who are only interested in power
Depends on your configuration (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:broadband (Score:2)