amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Jodokast96
Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??
said by Jodokast96  :Ah, them not having the right to send it is not the same as you having the right to not have it sent. Did you read what I wrote? You have the right to file Form 1500, which can lead to law enforcement action if the sender continues to mail you.
At a bare minimum you could sue the sender in your jurisdiction's Small Claims court, probably receiving a default judgment (because the offender wouldn't travel to defend themselves against what is indefensible.). After you have a few of those judgments, sell them to collection agencies for 50 cents on the dollar.
Mark |
|
utahluge
join:2004-10-14
Draper, UT
·Comcast
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :If you own a home, and you lease it out, and multiple people inform you that the people leasing your home are using it host sex with children, you wouldn't do anything about it?
Your response would be "landlords don't have the duty to police the way tenants use the home" ?
I doubt it very much. I bet you'd be the first one there, with a shotgun, a baseball bat, and ready to kick some ass. Uhhh, ever heard of a video camera? You would get a lot further with handing over a video tape to the police. At the very least it would keep you out of jail. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :But you can't keep looking at what the "Joneses" across the borders have, because behind close doors, they have plenty of their own grief! I agree they have their own grief. But, that shouldn't mean we can't consider what's possibly better.
Many of our problems seem to be attributable to apathy, or contentedness, or how we've written into law how every little thing should work (instead of encouraging the use of common sense, however imperfect that is in daily operation).
For example, I think there's something to be said for forcing all eligible adults to vote (done in some Latin American countries) as a way to keep the population engaged and reminded of their *duty* to participate, rather than expect someone else to fix problems. It has its downside too. (I'm not sure I'd want people voting who don't want to vote.) But, it's at least a step toward addressing a problem which I don't see us even trying to.
Mark |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin :I've seen it done first hand. Lawyer makes proper filings for an eviction, people tossed out by cops in about a week (during which they were in jail for armed robbery). Didn't appear too difficult aside from getting a lawyer. I don't know what state you live in, but that's totally false. First you file for eviction, then wait a while, go to court, the judge decides, gives them a max of 10 days to comply, then you can get the police to remove them. You don't need a lawyer to do this, anyone can (I have before) and even then you must have a good reason to tell the judge. In my case, it was lack of payment for the home, but a reason like "I think they are doing something illegal" would just be another court case and more time until the next trial to present your evidence before evicting them on top of another 10 days.
So I call BS on that.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | reply to kamm
You know, your vigilance gives support to telecom immunity!
Same premise, the ends justifying the means. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by TKJunkMail : If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed. Whatever happened to allegedly small government conservatives who abhor government interference in every little thing? I guess that only applies when it comes to their portfolios and Wall Street. Based on the junk you post here I am very sure that if you had stock in either company, you'd be singing an entirely different tune...one of deregulation instead of accountability. As a small government conservative, the answer is simple- it's not that we abhor government interference everywhere, but rather (in principle, if not always in practice) where it's unnecessary or counterproductive- the government (particularly the federal government) should not have their fingers in every pie.
Along with that is the belief that the government should be strong and effective in areas where it has an undeniably legitimate role- in this case law enforcement.
Here the ISP wasn't the one engaging in illegal activity, it was the the host. While they shouldn't be held responsible for every bit of illegal activity they weren't directly involved in, there is an argument to be made that they should be held accountable if they knowingly allow it to happen- essentially they'd be acting as a co-conspirator. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by dynodb :As a small government conservative, the answer is simple- it's not that we abhor government interference everywhere, but rather (in principle, if not always in practice) where it's unnecessary or counterproductive- the government (particularly the federal government) should not have their fingers in every pie. I think that's a very fair and accurate description which even liberals would agree with. The problem is in the definition of "counterproductive." It almost always boils down to the base human condition of "who's ox is being gored."
It's just that liberals don't try to dress it up in fancy terms about "free markets" and "being principled." 
Mark |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
Let me ask you something rhetorically, and I don't mean to demean. Are you raising a family? Do you have several jobs?
The reason why I ask because I'm not sure people without kids understand the obligations that MUST be met just to maintain necessities. This becomes an induced apathy because you don't have time to monitor the representative you've elected in your particular corner of the earth. I think this is the case with most working adults. It is peoples duty to participate, but it's also their duty to imform themselves about legislation. And what good is legislation if you're going to bypass it with a lynch mob mentality.
In addition, forcing an electorate would only fuel marketing to the ignorant.
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to emptywig
You are obviously not a landlord then because the rights and obligations of such do not extend to you investigating the activities of a tenant nor can you just up and throw someone out. State laws vary obviously, but for the most part evicting someone isnt done easily one afternoon and is generally a pretty long road that is in favor of the tenant, not the landlord.
In this case if the ISP's were aware of it then they should not have changed anything and gotten the proper authorities involved to investigate and collect evidence so the owners can be convicted. Otherwise they are simply going to go find another host and the process starts all over.
During that investigation the ISP's should be looked at as well to see if they were turning a blind eye to it. Not that I believe ISP's should be anything more than a dumbpipe, but if they are fully aware that they are being utilized for illegal activities, then they SHOULD be required to take the proper steps to aide authorities or brought to justice for not doing so. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed. There's no need to hold them responsible for the actions of their users--- just hold them responsible for their own actions (or lack thereof.)
The question really should be have they been informed and/or aware of the sites/nets/spam/operations.
I seriously doubt that they have received no complaints from victims, law enforcement, other ISP's, security and internet watchdog organizations, etc etc
So in all likely hood they were aware. In which case, you have to wonder if they aren't in some way complicit or liable in an enabling or accomplice role. I think some very hard questions should be being asked of these companies--- perhaps by the FBI, don't you think?
If they truly knew nothing, then again that begs the question of how they could possibly not know--- are they seriously incompetent at managing their network?
My guess is this was about the money. In which case, they should (rightly so) be in some deep trouble.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to DVOOR8
said by DVOOR8 :The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. This is where I think the problem lies. I think they ignored evidence/proof of wrongdoing right up until public scrutiny and publicity meant they had to act.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by KrK :said by DVOOR8 :The providers did the right thing, and pulled the service once they were shown proof of wrongdoing. This is where I think the problem lies. I think they ignored evidence/proof of wrongdoing right up until public scrutiny and publicity meant they had to act. I completely agree. Unfortunately this happens all too often. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to dynodb
This is pretty much the situation here, especially considering the evidence of illegal activity was in the open, accessible from the Internet and available for all to see. In most cases such inaction would result in a service provider (in this case the ISPs) being held accountable as accessories to a felony if they knew the felonious activity was occurring and did nothing about it because it would cut off a revenue stream.
This is not about censorship or Second Amendment rights. Hosting services are not real estate leases and as service contracts generally have provisions which allow the provider to cut off services in light of blatant illegal activity. The servers at McColo were unambiguously hosting illegal activity and the upstreams knew it. Pretty much a closed case. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :But, your contention is that, if commoners were less "uppity" (stayed home, engaged in calm discourse), things would be better. That's largely how dictatorships arose in the 70s - 80s (with US assistance, I might add). Your argument could have (and was) applied to the US founders too. Mark Not my contention at all.
The fact is the more violent a crowd becomes, the easier it is for police and the military to justify their actions whether it be tear gas, attack dogs, water cannons or bullets (rubber and real.)
The second a crowd turns from peaceful protests to rioting the tide of public opinion turns away from them. |
|
Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The size of the operation involved says that these 2 companies looked the other way while all these illegal operations were going on. If this isn't a reason to hold carriers responsible for the actions of their customers, I don't know what is. The law holding ISPs free from responsibility needs to be changed. *punches wall, is republican, is 300 pounds* |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :the obligations that MUST be met just to maintain necessities. This becomes an induced apathy I agree to some extent. But, I'm not sure how many people merely don't have time as opposed to being caught up in making the payments for their new all-wheel-drive, armor-laden SUV (purchased every 2 years). Or, their time-share condos. Or, the latest Wii game. Or, downloading all the "free" music they can find on the net.
Sometimes I think apathy translates more into contentedness. I think most people are like the hoard shown in the movie The Matrix. Plugged in, all their bodily functions performed for them, and slowly slipping into uselessness as a consumer.
They may occasionally express an opinion about current affairs, stopped in mid-sentence with "oooh, is that the new Blackberry? (salivation)"
said by S_engineer :It is peoples duty to participate, but it's also their duty to imform themselves about legislation. That's the rub, isn't it? How does something carry the weight of a duty if it's not enforced? We've lost a great deal in this regard. The jury was intended to be a fourth branch of government. Where individuals could essentially veto a law (nullification). Today, most good citizens would be as horrified by that idea as they would be by violent protests (or even horn-blowing labor strikers in the middle of an airport). They'd see it as "anarchy."
The same thing with the militia. It was intended to give the people the ability, working within a framework of government (a state militia), the power to *choose* to oppose government. It's no surprise that the militia's disappearance began in the 1880s through 1930s, as there were instances where the militia was called out to put down a labor strike, and instead defended the strikers.
Both of those institutions were originally compelled. (The jury still is, but is typically instructed that it only has the power to judge the facts of the case, not the law itself.).
The question is how do we get back to that. Or, do we want to? Whatever we do will be problematic. I at least feel a sense of wishing we were a little more like Latin American countries when I see students and the police squaring off for their annual violent protest (an eerie sense of the casualness of a re-enactment, but with real bullets). Or, 20 protestors in the airport raising heck (legally, as a recognized and encouraged act). Something about the passion at least. And the respect for passion as a part of civil life.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :The second a crowd turns from peaceful protests to rioting the tide of public opinion turns away from them. I don't disagree with that, as far as it goes. It's the old adage that the definition of a terrorist or patriot depends on who won (and, by extension, how popular the rebellion was). Just a few years after the American Revolution some whiskey makers felt put upon by taxation. Using the same rhetoric of the founders just a decade earlier they rebelled in what came to be called Shay's Rebellion.
The public was horrified. It was the leading cause for calls to abandon the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation for the Federal Constitution. Backers of the AoC defended (or at least poo-pooed) Shay and his men. But, their side lost. We ended up with a relatively colossal government from the *very* same people who used Shay's arguments against the British.
OTOH, if nobody ever tests popularity (or even encouraged to discuss it, and consider their right to test it) you end up with a populace who is largely apathetic, disengaged, content.
If we applied the same mindset which pervades our society today (you have to play by the rules) we wouldn't have had the original Revolution. However, that doesn't mean I want to see anarchy, or every nutjob blowing up federal buildings. Just saying there's a certain level of passion and critical thought that we've lost. (And, I see expressed in countries we tend to look down upon.).
Mark |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by S_engineer :the obligations that MUST be met just to maintain necessities. This becomes an induced apathy The question is how do we get back to that. Or, do we want to? Whatever we do will be problematic. Mark Getting back what we would lost would mean all the cards would have to be laid out. No circumventing by people with their own greed or agendas. Complicating this mess are the globalization factors that continue to erode our manufacturing base and our sovereignty.
I think about how my parents went through years of the great depression. They had the tenacity to tough it out. The question seems to me is in a era where we want everything right now, are we as tough as they were?
If we're not, we're in trouble!
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to amigo_boy
but that does not mean E-Mail. Postal mail and email are two different things. And as we seen here before from one other state not too long ago it is a persons right to send SPAM in one state. Right to free speech. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :The question seems to me is in a era where we want everything right now, are we as tough as they were? If we're not, we're in trouble! It sounds like you might be advocating a big-bang approach. The system will eventually melt down, and that's when people will be confronted with reality, forced into a crash-course in civic virtue (making choices based upon the "common good" rather than private interest).
That's one way. Some progressives argue that there are ways to re-instill a form of civic republicanism in the populace. From neighborhood watch groups that are empowered to do more than merely hide behind the curtain as they call 911, to "workplace democracy."
The latter is interesting to me because the Founders believed in civic republicanism. An ideology which was based upon ever-expanding frontiers. Where every citizen had the (compelled) duty to participate in government for the common good, and their participation was backed by the independence to retreat to his lands and be self-sufficient, needing no government.
By the standards of civic republicanism we've become the equivalent of share croppers. Working a 9-5 job with no ownership interest. No frontiers that we can retreat to.
The idea of workplace democracy would be to give individuals greater ownership and responsibility in their otherwise "at will" jobs. Intrusive upon business. But, more cooperative than the antagonistic relationship of labor unions versus "get what you can" management.
The idea being, there may be ways to reinstill elements behind civic virtue (individual emphasis on common good as a means to satisfy their own self-interest) without going all the way to an abrupt meltdown with a society that is "palsied" (from the founders viewpoint).
Civic republicanism is actually an interesting mix (or contradiction) of socialism and libertarianism. An interesting play between the liberties of the individual being foremost, but an emphasis upon the individual's dependence upon a virtuous government to recognize and protect those liberties. And, closing the circle, the individual's duty to ensure a virtuous government; and a government beind defined as one which compels individuals to participate and be virtuous.
Mark |
|
