woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | hmmmm......,
"misinformation circulating in cyberspace."
the problem with that statement is that the statements are true, and they are the ones spewing the misinformation....
--
BlooMe |
|
Sweet Witch
Be the flame, not the moth.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-15
Gallifrey
 ·Comcast
| Zombies
I think it would be good to help identify zomnie machines, but the users should be given time and help to disinfect their machines before being charged (and possibly losing their houses!!).
--
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. |
|
Heterman
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Fayetteville, AR
| Interesting method
If you hit people where it hurts (i.e. the pocketbook), then they will be more likely to safeguard their system. Most people don't give a shit if their system is infected, as long as they can get to the porn sites on a regular basis and open any and all email that is sent to thier inbox. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Sweet Witch
Re: Zombies
said by Sweet Witch  :I think it would be good to help identify zomnie machines, but the users should be given time and help to disinfect their machines before being charged (and possibly losing their houses!!). And I am sure that is what Qwest would do. They aren't going to start charging clueless home users $5 msg. The clause is there for those they find that are doing this on purpose and for profit and then they have a club to beat them over the head with.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to Heterman
Re: Interesting method
said by Heterman :If you hit people where it hurts (i.e. the pocketbook), then they will be more likely to safeguard their system. Most people don't give a shit if their system is infected, as long as they can get to the porn sites on a regular basis and open any and all email that is sent to thier inbox. Why do people always assume that everyone is a porn user that gets infected? There are many people who do NOT go to porn sites that get infected. True, most of the ones I know of are also more or less clueless about computers except maybe for a very narrow application knowledge.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
chesney09
Premium
join:2004-07-26
Redford, MI
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Heterman
People shouldn't have to be Techs to use the internet.
If hardware companies made equipment easier to use, easier to set up, and easier to understand... Might help.
If Software companies didn't release software that wasn't secure and needing to be updated weekly over the latest hole and/or threat...
If software companies didn't install hidden programs that opened more holes in the OS...
The issue isn't about PORN.. I think you are making a judgement that is COMPLETELY out of line.
Edit: Spelling |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
3 edits | DSLR making S up again?
Where in the TOS does it say they charge users even if it results from "oh, say a Windows WMF vulnerability"? It's obvious to people with more than 3 brain cells why this is in their TOS and in a lot of TOSes (same crap appears in DSL Extreme's TOS and is a bit more harsh). said by DSL Extreme :
DSLExtreme may charge customer and customer shall pay $1000.00 per valid spam complaint of which DSLExtreme is notified.
It's to discourage spammers from directly using their service.
That is unless you can show an example of Qwest, DSL Extreme or anyone else ever enforcing these types of long existing and very common policy against someone who is unknowingly running a zombie box.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
Heterman
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Fayetteville, AR
| reply to chesney09
Re: Interesting method
said by RayW :Why do people always assume that everyone is a porn user that gets infected? I didn't say that.
said by RayW : True, most of the ones I know of are also more or less clueless about computers except maybe for a very narrow application knowledge. Well...
said by chesney09 :People shouldn't have to be Techs to use the internet. True
said by chesney09 :If Software companies didn't release software that wasn't secure and needing to be updated weekly over the latest hole and/or threat... If software companies didn't install hidden programs that opened more holes in the OS... I can agree somewhat with this. Some software and even some anitvirus software is more bloated than many users care to use. Hell, I don't even use some of the software because of bloatedness and crapware.
said by chesney09 :The issue isn't about PORN.. I think you are making a judgement that is COMPLETELY out of line. Here we go again, I didn't say "Everyone who is infected goes to porn sites", I also did not say that "Everyone must be techs to operate a computer", I simply stated that most people don't care whether they are infected, nor do they want to take the steps or measures to fix or prevent such occurences. This includes opening email attachments from people you don't know or someone promising you all the world's riches "if you click here". |
|
geekamongus
Real Slump Quality
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-27
Asheville, NC
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Zombies
said by TKJunkMail :And I am sure that is what Qwest would do. They aren't going to start charging clueless home users $5 msg. The clause is there for those they find that are doing this on purpose and for profit and then they have a club to beat them over the head with. If they aren't going to start charging clueless home users, then there is no need for the clause. There are other ways to catch and charge people who are doing this on purpose and/or for profit.
--
.oOo. |
|
mythology
join:2002-10-16
Seneca, SC
1 edit | Right direction.
I think its a good idea. The customer should be notified of the charges before they appear on the bill and the ISP should help the user secure his or her PC. |
|
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
·Comcast
| reply to oliphant
Re: DSLR making S up again?
quote:
Qwest user agreement that threatens to charge users $5 for each spam email a user's PC sends
I think there was a reference to exploits and worms turning PCs into zombies.
I think the logic goes that if a zombie PC sends out an unsolicited commercial email (ie SPAM) and it is from a Qwest account, Qwest will charge the user of said PC $5 for sending out spam (even if the PC owner had no idea spam was being sent from their PC). |
|
truocchio
join:2004-07-05
Miami Beach, FL |  reply to chesney09
Re: Interesting method
Then no one would have jobs...duh!
(sarcasm) |
|
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
1 edit | Significant privity of contract issue, here...
If I get ISP services from Joe's ISP, and I have landline from Qwest carrying it, where does Qwest infer a right to modify the terms of service that I agree to with my ISP? They would, it seems to me, have to impose the terms in their own contract with the party using their network, the ISP. The ISP would then have to decide how to pass them on to their subscribers.
I'm still sorting out this convoluted cobweb of information, but I can say this much. A provider should be trying to educate and help their users regarding the risks of the internet. They shouldn't be treating the users like little children, and imposing "zero tolerence" regulations that penalize people for being victims. Wanton spamming, sure. Charge 'em fifty bucks a spam. But it's somewhat unconscionable, if you ask me, to say that your duty of security is absolute, and subject to immediate and automatic penalties*. I seriously doubt they would want similar regulations imposed on themselves, and I'll bet they have undiscovered weaknesses in their own corporate IT security. Even the best IT people miss things, and get infected. As I've frequently remarked in Security, there's no magic bullet... security's relative, not absolute, and absolute, perfect security simply doesn't exist, never has and never will, owing to the nature of the beast.
They need to take great care, and not start thinking "we're bunkered to the hilt, nobody can get through our security, so we have a right to look down our noses and judge our users"... just by way of example, when I did a little research a few years back to prove my thesis that a large number of so-called "public anonymous proxies" that get advertised on the internet are actually private proxies being hijacked, and trojanized proxies on other peoples' systems, I found dozens of Fortune 500 companies, colleges, schools, and a few ISP's (I don't think Qwest was one, to their credit), and a lot of very clear "user block" addresses, implying that at least a few of the "public proxies" are either men in the middle or trojanized rogue servers.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... if they end up getting one of their own networks compromised and abused for spam or other, even nastier nastiness, they're going to look pretty bad. 
* - I do, however, by way of post script, reserve judgement on the idea of immediately disconnecting people who are advised that they're infected to the point of disrupting the network, and just sit on their hands. It might not be a bad idea, at all, to tell people "we'll give you one warning and a reasonable time to demolish a termite mound you're running, and, if you don't, we'll disconnect you until you do prove to us that it's been disinfected." But that isn't the approach, here. Typically, it's in the form of a charge... in other words, spam away, if you're willing to pay five bucks a spam. The appropriate approach, of course, is to say "get off of our network if you won't stop spamming, or remove the trojan doing it in a reasonable time"...
--
Semper Eadem
Madman, thou errest. I say there is no darkness but ignorance ... |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to KeepOnRockin
Re: DSLR making S up again?
What I'm missing is I read the AUP and under the spam section there was no mention of worms or anything else.
This is what I'm looking at
quote:
All use of the Services will comply with the AUP, posted at »www.qwest.com/legal/. Among other
things, the AUP prohibits sending unsolicited e-mail messages, including bulk commercial advertising or informational announcements
(collectively, "Spam"), and Qwest will immediately terminate any account which Qwest believes is transmitting or is otherwise
connected with any Spam. You will pay Qwest's actual damages in any way arising from, or related to, any Spam transmitted by, or in
any way connected to, you, to the extent such actual damages can be reasonably calculated. If actual damages cannot be calculated
reasonably, you agree to pay Qwest liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars ($5.00) for each piece of Spam transmitted from or
otherwise connected with your account.
"any way connected to" looks to be translated by DSLR and everyone else into worms, but it doesn't actually mention that and unless I saw a history of enforcement along those lines I think DSLR and others freaking out are simply that...over-reacting to a very common clause in TOS/AUPs.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Few people read them
Very few people read them... What happens is one person does read it and repeats the information, accurately or not. The next person repeats it but it gets a little bit wrong or exaggerated is more likely.
It's like the game you played when you're a kid. Everyone sits in a broken circle and the story starts at one end. By the time it gets to the other end, it's a completely different story. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to oliphant
Re: DSLR making S up again?
said by oliphant :What I'm missing is I read the AUP and under the spam section there was no mention of worms or anything else. Worms are one way that systems are turned into spam-spewing systems. The point the DSLR article is raising, I think, is it right to charge users for spam if their system is zombified before a patch for a vulnerability is found?
For example... Say a worm was written to exploit the new WMF vulerability and before a fix is released, some one writes a worm that uses that vulnerability to install a trojan that runs as a spam generator. Should that user be charged for that spam?
That's the angle I gather...
--
Rand's Objectivism... Everything BUT objective. |
|
Heterman
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Fayetteville, AR | reply to Hall
Re: Few people read them
That is the telco telephone game. |
|
Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON | reply to Hall
but part of the problem is the catch that the TOS can change at any time with out notice. and for many they do take advantage of changing things with out notice. |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country! | reply to gwion
Re: Significant privity of contract issue, here...
My question is how does the copper line provider legally read my data going to and from my third party ISP without all including the third party ISP's agreement? This sounds like an illegal wiretap, or at least a major EFF issue. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | reply to geekamongus
Re: Zombies
When Cash is tight they will use that clause to start charging users. Mark my Words.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
