Washington Post Kills Major Spam, Child Porn Pit > Eh

Eh

I don't see them taking down a number of child porn sites based in Europe. Especially in Russia where a HUGE one exists. Been around I think for at least 5 years and going.

reply to kamm

Apt. analogy makes me laugh.

>Actually the recommended response is for the ISP to stop >offering their services to the offender. I suppose all >that other irrelevant stuff was fun for you to write, >though.

If the ISP becomes aware of it, of course.
An ISP should always act on a TOS violation.

>(I bet you had fun writing that one too.)
>Reading that 3x is a lot like peeling the same orange 3 >times. Somehow, it just never turns into an apple.
>Internet Service Providing isn't HillaryCare. An >ISProvider isn't obligated by law to provide services >against their will.

I never said they should provide services against their will.
I DID say that they should provide the pipe the customer
paid for. If that customer is found to violate the TOS
of the ISP, then the plug should be pulled.

>Perhaps that would be your mentality if you were an ISP.
>Most folks in this forum would refuse to accept money for >the cause of hosting k-porn. But again, we're not you.

True, you're not me, however, regardless of what data
is, be it a jpg, mp3 or whatever, an ISP is paid to
provide the pipe that data goes over.
How is an ISP supposed to know a k-porn site is active
on their network without someone telling them?
I'm looking at this from a technical point of view.
I'm sure anyone that hosts such sites doesn't come right
out and say, I'm hosting child pornography and I want service
from you. Most ISP's want billing information and don't
give a crap. If there's a TOS violation they are made
aware of, then they can pull the plug if they want.

>Or they could not get paid for not providing the
>mechanisms for spam and child pornography. I know you're
>struggling with this, but try to stay with me.
>It really is true. There are some folks who manage to eek >out a living, without aiding spammers and k-porn barons.
>You could be one of them, all you have to do is to believe.

True and most ISP's do. However, as I stated, unless it
is brought to the attention of a HUMAN, the network itself
has no way of knowing what kind of data the users of that
network are passing over it. Now, try and stay with me
on this, a hard drive, network, PC, or other computer
peripheral has no idea what data is stored/displayed/printed etc.
A human has to make that determination.
Hopefully this clarifies my earlier post.

>Actually it would be like an auto leasing company
>choosing to stop doing business
>with a client that depends on those leased vehicles,
>to smuggle in children for his sex trade.

Again, a HUMAN has to make that determination.
I still say money is the great motivator.
The host had all that k-porn/spam etc on it and they
didn't know? The court of public opinion can be a powerful
one. Would you want to join up with an ISP that is known
to host such garbage? My previous post inferred more of
the technical aspects.

>For most of us,
>the loss of income would be worth it
>to not be a part
>of something so profoundly evil.

But that's just the majority of humanity. I understand you have your own creative style of logic.

Yes, clear logic, a data pipe is a data pipe, it's dumb.
It has no intelligence, and doesn't know what kind of data
is passing through it. Looking at it logically, since the
data pipe itself has no intelligence, and human interaction
is required to make a determination, computers cannot be
relied upon to do so. Sure computers can compare files and
determine if they match, but to determine if it's "good"
or "bad" (human concepts by the way) is impossible at this
point in time.

>You seem to object to any interference with the flow of
>data. It doesn't matter how many thousands of human
>beings are utterly ruined by the monsters you enable
>through your ideology.

OK let's pull that one apart....
Of course I object to any interference to the free flow of
data. Data is data. As I've previously stated, good and
evil are human concepts that a computer cannot understand.
Nowhere in this or my previous post did I advocate the
spread of child pornography. Let's use a simple analogy.
A hammer is used to drive nails is it not?
A hammer can also be used to bash someone's skull in.
Should the sale of hammers be banned based on a use that
MAY occur? Of course not. Computers are tools NV, and
how those tools are used depends on the morality of the
person using them. Unfortunately, there are those who look
for this garbage and unfortunately, where there is a demand,
there will be a supply.

I think the entire net needs to be redesigned.
Spammers will look for any open mail server, hack any
easy email password, use malware, spyware, and any PC that
can be compromised, anything they don't have to pay for
to send out the porn links, nigerian 419 email scams, etc.
Any access they can get they'll use. It's already been
proven. Look for a program called Wireshark, and see how
many probes and scans of your IP address are made in a
24 hour period.
As the email system stands right now, everything in, except
what you block. It should be everything blocked, except
what you let in. The net's a mess. You really want to stop
the k-porn and crap? Go after the people looking for it
as well as the people supplying it.

--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49

>If the ISP becomes aware of it, of course.
>An ISP should always act on a TOS violation.

>Spam Origination ISPs ARE notified by spam
>filtering services; dozens of times a day, via their
>registered abuse address.
>Likewise, k-porn hosts and providers are also notified
>regularly, by law enforcement and private agencies who
>deal with this stuff.

>You'll have to do better than that to protect those who
>are rewarded for spam and k-porn.

So if they're notified, and do nothing they should be held
liable as well. The Son Of Sam law prohibits criminals
from profiting in any way from their crimes.
Any ISP worth its salt has it in their TOS that the
Service will not be used for illegal purposes.

>I offered that the ISP isn't under a legal constraint to
>support k-porn or spam. That removes the ONLY possibly
>valid reason to not immediately terminate that support.

If the account holder is violating the TOS, then of course
the account should be terminated. However, how many ISP's
read the thousands of emails going to abuse@isp.com net
or whatever? I know when I send spam to Yahoo's abuse,
I get a reply within a day.

>So knowingly hosting k-porn is acceptable to you, as long >as you are paid for it and it isn't against any ToS you
>might happen to jot down.

>Nice.

>You wouldn't mind
>providing your personal contact information
>to those children
>who were raped in order to provide those images,
>would you?
>As they grow to adulthood, some may wish to stop by and >express their feelings on your profiteering methods.

As previously stated, I am against any form of child
pornography, and this is the second time I've had to make
this clear to you.

I also previously stated, that data is data, and unless
one human notifies another human that something is wrong,
the network will pass the data sent through it.

I also said, that no ISP I know of at least in the USA
would willingly accept payment from someone who opens
an account and tells the ISP they're a child porn distributor.
However, there appears to be a market for it, and the
old law of supply and demand comes into play.
If there's a demand, there will always be a supply.
Have you ever seen a ball bearing 1000 ft around?
I haven't. Why? There's no demand for it, hence, no supply.
It's like the "war on drugs", there's a demand for it,
so there will always be a supply, no matter how much
law enforcement throws money and resources at it.
Why? Because there's no electronic trail. Drug pushers
can meet anywhere, anytime to peddle their garbage and
the users who are addicted will always be there.

>I would think that daily notices of spam traffic and
>regular alerts to their k-porn provisions would constitute
>being notified.
>So it really isn't a matter of ignorance then, is it?

If an ISP is ignoring notification that something is wrong
then that ISP is in it for the money and doesn't care
what is wrong. If I were an ISP, and I found that filth
on my network, law enforcement would be notified immediately.
The smart thing is for law enforcement to go after the downloaders as well.
I truly wonder how many ISP's really DO read their
abuse@ emails. There is probably some automated system
in place to deal with it. Still though, from a technical
standpoint, a network doesn't know or care what data is
going over it. It takes human to human contact to make
the determination that some data (jpg or whatever) is
k-porn.

>They don't have to. As soon as they establish themselves
>as a provider that is friendly to spam, bots and k-porn,
>the business comes to them. All they need to do to
>establish themselves is to ignore the countless abuse
>notices that alert them to the illicit network traffic.

And for this they should be held liable.
When Youtube is notified that there is copyrighted material
posted, they usually remove it immediately or in a timely
manner. What I find interesting is, it took a news reporter
to get this McColo site shut down. So the question becomes,
did the ISP know? If so, how long did they know, and if
the amount of time spans years, then why wasn't action
taken sooner?

>Most ISP's want billing information and don't give a crap. >If there's a TOS violation they are made aware of, then >they can pull the plug if they want.

>Most ISP's don't care? Maybe in the Czech Republic or
>Nairobi or your world. Most US ISP's are going to dump
>those accounts, the moment they read the abuse notices.

And how many actually do? When a person signs up for
service, the only thing an ISP wants to know at first is
will they be paid. That's the bottom line.
The user reads the TOS (which hopefully has some clause
in there that says they won't use the network for illegal
purposes), clicks accept, and bingo, they now have an
account. At this point, the ISP is only interested in
providing service for payment. Spammers/k-porn etc.
don't care about the TOS. If one ISP dumps them, they'll
just find another, or, using a different name/info, come
back to the same ISP. Not to mention the fact that there
are literally tens of thousands of viruses and worms out
on the net designed to exploit any weakness in a PC so
a spammer/etc. can use it to send out their garbage for
free.

>Or they could not get paid for not providing the
>mechanisms for spam and child pornography. I know you're
>struggling with this, but try to stay with me.
>It really is true. There are some folks who manage to eek >out a living, without aiding spammers and k-porn barons.
>You could be one of them, all you have to do is to believe.

>True and most ISP's do. However, as I stated, unless it
>is brought to the attention of a HUMAN, the network itself
>has no way of knowing what kind of data the users of that
>network are passing over it.

>Thousands of abuse notices might just rise to the level of
>NOTIFICATION.

Re-read what I said, the NETWORK has no way of knowing.
It still takes a human to make that determination.
To the network, those thousands of abuse notices are just
data.

>Now, try and stay with me
>on this, a hard drive, network, PC, or other computer
>peripheral has no idea what data is stored/displayed
>/printed etc. A human has to make that determination.
>Hopefully this clarifies my earlier post.

>And the humans whose networks provision k-porn, spam and
>bots choose, more than a day or two, have chosen to profit
>from that material.

Exactly. CHOOSE TO. A human has to make the choice.
As stated, where there is a demand, there will be a
supply. It's unfortunate but alas, it is true.
I think they should be held liable as well. If there is
notification and nothing is done, then they're in it
for the money. I still say go after the people looking
for it (drying up the demand) and the supply should go
with it. Naturally in a perfect world, that would be true.
However, in our world, it unfortunately isn't.

>Actually it would be like an auto leasing company
>choosing to stop doing business
>with a client that depends on those leased vehicles,
>to smuggle in children for his sex trade.

>Again, a HUMAN has to make that determination.
>I still say money is the great motivator.

>The host had all that k-porn/spam etc on it and they
>didn't know?
>They knew. With the length of time they were enabling
>spam-casting, the notices likely numbered hundreds of
>thousands.

If it went on for years then of course they knew.
I've been trying to tell you, that as far as technology
goes, one computer passing data to another sees that
data as binary information. 0's and 1's.
Again, a human has to make the determination.
Even if they didn't read the abuse@ emails, the server
space alone to store thousands and thousands over the
years would at least give them SOME clue.
So yes, they knew.

>For most of us,
>the loss of income would be worth it
>to not be a part
>of something so profoundly evil.

>But that's just the majority of humanity.
>I understand you have your own creative style of logic.

>Yes, clear logic, a data pipe is a data pipe, it's dumb.
>It has no intelligence, and doesn't know what kind of data
>is passing through it. Looking at it logically, since the
>data pipe itself has no intelligence, and human interaction
>is required to make a determination, computers cannot be
>relied upon to do so. Sure computers can compare files and
>determine if they match, but to determine if it's "good"
>or "bad" (human concepts by the way) is impossible at this
>point in time.

>Unless, of course, you read the notices that inform that
>the files are, indeed bad.

On that we agree. I tend to look at the technical side
of things. A NIC or hard drive doesn't know what the data
is, to them, it's all 0's and 1's.

>You seem to object to any interference with the flow of
>data. It doesn't matter how many thousands of human
>beings are utterly ruined by the monsters you enable
>through your ideology.

>OK let's pull that one apart....
>Of course I object to any interference to the free flow of
>data. Data is data.

>And much of that data is innocuous. But the instant
>appearance of tens of thousands of connections, to a
>single user might just put you on to the trail of one of
>the bot nets you host.

>As I've previously stated, good and evil are human
>concepts that a computer cannot understand. Nowhere in
>this or my previous post did I advocate the spread of
>child pornography.

>It's true that you didn't say that.
>However you did state that you object to an ISP preventing
>the spread of k-porn, via their network, as long as the
>k-porn baron has paid their bill and isn't in conflict
>with any ToS the ISP owner may have scribbled down.

No, I said, I object to an ISP impeding the free flow of
data. 0's and 1's. Nowhere did I say I advocate the spread
of k-porn. As I said, I'm looking at things from the
technical point of view. I know when I send email to my
sister or video chat with my mother, I don't need an ISP
impeding that data. At this point in time however, there
does not seem to be a way for an ISP to curb the k-porn.
Here's the quandry I see. It's illegal to produce right?
It's illegal to possess right? So even if it were
technically possible to compare every file going over every
IP address of its network, how can an ISP compare files
if such garbage is illegal to produce or possess?

>Let's use a simple analogy.
>A hammer is used to drive nails is it not?
>A hammer can also be used to bash someone's skull in.
>Should the sale of hammers be banned based on a use that
>MAY occur? Of course not.

>An analogy of goods to highlight an issue of services, >isn't a very good analogy; but we'll try to work with it.

>So this guy is buying a stream of hammers from you. I
>stop in and provide you acceptable evidence that he's >burying them in the skulls of horses.
>You then plug your fingers in your ears and sing loudly
>"La La La La La. Nobody's notifying me of anyone killing
>horses with my hammers! La La La La La!".

>You then continue to sell him hammers because
>he's PAYING for them,
>there isn't any 'No Killing Horses with These Hammers' >notice posed in the window,
>and what business is it of yours, anyway?

How is a hammer supposed to know it's killing horses?
When I go to a hardware store to buy a hammer, does the
salesperson ask me if I'm going to use it to kill horses?
Of course not. I can go back there as many times as I want
and buy as many hammers as I want. Now, if the hardware
store has any morality, and is informed that the hammers
they are selling to me are being used to kill horses, then
hopefully they would stop selling me hammers wouldn't they?

Suppose I have a baby that's deathly allergic to milk.
One drop could kill them. I go to the store for a gallon.
Is the store going to ask me if I have a baby that's
deathly allergic to milk? Of course not. They will sell
me the product as long as I am willing to pay for it.

Now, if that same store were notified that I intend to
purchase milk to kill my baby (if an isp were notified
beforehand that the account I purchased was intended to
be used for illegal purposes) then that store would be
under a moral obligation not to sell me milk.

>Computers are tools NV, and how those tools are used
>depends on the morality of the person using them.

>That is so profound, I may have that tattooed on my thigh.

It is also true, and like any inanimate object, computers
have no concept of "good" or "bad".

>Unfortunately, there are those who look for this garbage
>and unfortunately, where there is a demand, there will be
>a supply.
>The supply doesn't magically appear. People work to
>create it. Other people turn their heads and enable it.
>Still others, make excuses for them both.

Thank you. You've just summed up what I've been saying.
Computers have no idea the F-bomb is a "bad" word.
The letters F U C and K can be used in plenty of other
words. It's when you string them together in a certain
sequence, that it becomes morally objective.
It comes back down to the old law of supply and demand.

>Look for a program called Wireshark, and see how many
>probes and scans of your IP address are made in a 24 hour
>period.

>Well, gee whiz Wally, I'll just go do that (you forgot to
>recommend using WinPCap 4.1 beta, because it's more
>compatible in promiscuous mode on virtual and wireless
>adapters).

>And here's something really brilliant I can to with
>Wireshark. I could point it inside my network and spot
>check http headers for keywords, look for malformed packet
>and concentrated port traffic spikes.

>That's if I managed any type of network, and I actually
>cared about something beyond my paycheck. If.

Haven't heard of WinPCap, I'll have to check that one out.
I don't manage any type of network except for my home one.

>As the email system stands right now, everything in,
>except what you block. It should be everything blocked,
>except what you let in. The net's a mess. You really want
>to stop the k-porn and crap? Go after the people looking
>for it as well as the people supplying it.

>Oh yea. Imposing suffocating controls is WAY better than
>an ISP shutting off their bot and spam traffic, once
>they've been notified.

>NV

Naturally an ISP should be notified, that's a given.
But if there were a way to stop the crap in the first
place, then ISP notification would be moot wouldn't it?
I don't see how a whitelist email system would be
suffocating controls. For instance, I have Skype, and
there is an option to only allow contacts from people I
know. Same thing with MSN Messenger. Now if those two
programs can do it, why not web based email?
Is it really too much trouble to add only the people you
want to receive email from to an addressbook?
It sure would put a stop to all the randomaddress@yahoo.com
spam that says come see me **** on webcam".
Even if you filter "crap" they can spell it "c r a p"
and still get by your filter.
With a whitelist based email system, you still get the
content you want without all the spam.

As far as the k-porn crap, unfortunately, it's not going
to go away any more than spam is. It doesn't matter how
many hosts an ISP shuts down, they'll pop up somewhere else.
I still say that law enforcement should go after the
people that look for k-porn as well as those that supply it.

--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49