 
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. | |
|  | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 | |
| | | 
geekamongus
Real Slump Quality
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-27
Asheville, NC
| Re: Zombies said by GOLFnSUN :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. | |
| | | | 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | 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? | |
| 
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. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| 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 | 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 | |
| | |
Heterman
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Fayetteville, AR
| 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". | |
| | | truocchio
join:2004-07-05
Miami Beach, FL | Then no one would have jobs...duh!
(sarcasm) | |
| 
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.... | |
| | 
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
·Comcast
| 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). | |
| | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | 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.... | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| 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. | |
| | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: DSLR making S up again? They aren't saying, "are they right"...they're saying they can with no evidence that they can, will or even would.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: DSLR making S up again? said by oliphant :They aren't saying, "are they right"...they're saying they can with no evidence that they can, will or even would. Well, considering the ToS is written as they usually are, to be as non-specific as possible, the ToS would give them the right ability to charge per spam message in any situation, regardless of if you are a zombie.
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. Seems pretty clear... You spam, we slap you with a "fine." It makes no distinction about how the spam is transmitted. If its simply connected to your account, say via your IP address, its your problem. | |
| | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Re: DSLR making S up again? That's my point...DSLR eds take the ball and run with it until someone says something and they quickly change the article from "even if" to "users wonder".
My comments are more about DSLR's continuous editorializing and sensationalizing items (like when they blasted FIOS installers for breaking stuff when it wasn't them...then pulling the story), rather than just sticking to the facts, than the items themselves.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: DSLR making S up again? Yes, but is it DSLR editorializing or repeating user concerns from the various forums listed?
Users wonder: what if it's the result of oh, say a Windows WMF vulnerability infection? It clearly sounds like Qwest users have some concerns about this ToS section. | |
| | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: DSLR making S up again? DSLR ed CHANGED the news item to say that. It originally said something to the effect of "even if"...nothing about "users wonder".
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: DSLR making S up again? said by oliphant :DSLR ed CHANGED the news item to say that. It originally said something to the effect of "even if"...nothing about "users wonder". Well, when I first read it, I saw the "users wonder" statement... While I don't doubt the possibility that it could have been edited, what I see now doesn't jive, so there's no way I can tell who is telling the truth.
Perhaps, though, the change was done to make it more clear that users in the forums are was prompted that question ?
I don't know though and I prefer not to take sides without all of the facts in front of me to review... I can only debate the article as it is now. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Re: DSLR making S up again? Which I'm guessing is why they changed it. | |
| | | | | | | | 
MeanPeepsSuk
Premium
join:2004-11-21
Muddy Field
clubs:
| I agree, Oliphant. Without the "spin" to help along the paranoids and the not-happy-no-matter-what-you-do types (which equates to more posts/traffic here), the topic more likely would be not so sensational.
So, Quest puts a clause in place that gives them the power to go after spammers (Good!). You know, the people that probably use 85% of the infrastructure, and the cost thereof gets passed onto you. (What? you thought Quest let that eat into their profits?).
I can think of many more angles why this is GOOD for the users.. but that would not be newsworthy here. | |
| | | | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| 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. 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. "in any connected to, you", I think it means, if they can prove it came from YOUR machine, not someone else's, then you are responsible. | |
| 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. | |
| 
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 ... | |
| | 
EGeezer
Summertime -
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country! | 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. | |
| |
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| Well, we can argue at length the limits of governemntal wiretapping, but private wiretapping is, always has been, and, hopefully, always will be illegal de facto. I recall a case where a guy wired his neighbor, and then tried to file a criminal complaint... using the wiretap as his evidence. The district magistrate refused his complaint... and called the police, who filed a complaint against HIM, for wiretapping. That complaint was approved, by the way.
I would guess they could receive a complaint, accompanied by supporting evidence, without breaking any laws, though. And therein lies the foundation for a lovely lawsuit... I wonder if Qwest ran this by legal before they announced it? It's definitely the kind of thing that, if you ever really try using it, can turn around and bite you right on the... ahem... I digress...
I actually don't think they're relying on wire interception, all told. They would probably start with a complaint, and track back the mail traffic. Not hard. Even if everything's obfuscated, the account that's sending out 10,000 SMTP connections a day's a likely candidate for being the culprit... What bothers me, of course, is that bit where there's no differentiation between deliberate spam, and happening to get compromised by a spam relay. There just has to be a good faith notice given to clean things up or face the consequences. And those consequences shouldn't be monetary, they should be the abrupt termination of service until the account holder can certify that things are cleaned up.
The internet, remember, is wide open, though... the anecdote, above, related to phone lines. That's always been one of my major arguments, that when you send an unencrypted anything across the notoriously wide open internet, you have no expectation of privacy. It's like posting on the supermarket bulletin board. It's genuinely hard to make a real privacy argument with internet communications, unless you're taking affirmative measures to protect what little privacy you might have. Since I doubt most spammers would find a PGP "envelope" very desirable for their content and purpose, you know, on reflection, I'm thinking it would be pretty much arguable that they could, if they really, really have nothing better to do with their time, play man in the middle and snoop on their network, long as they only snooped at plaintext unencrypted material... and they can certainly log, and logs tell enough to set up a presumption of spamming, based on patterns.
Just some later evening idle musings... good points... how do they plan on enforcing this? Can you imagine them presenting a damned printout of (who knows HOW forged) message headers sent them by an anonymous "informant", and asking for five bucks for spamming? Hooboy. The more I think about this, the more it strikes me as a really ridiculous idea with so many strings attached... I don't see how they can ever possibly enforce it. Sounds mostly like a "see, we're taking action on spam" publicity stunt, the more you think about it.
--
Semper Eadem
Madman, thou errest. I say there is no darkness but ignorance ... | |
| | iowanews1
join:2004-04-07
Des Moines, IA | terms of service ONLY apply to intenet service provided by Qwest. If you're on DSL and have an ISP other than Qwest, you're covered by your ISP's TOS. | |
| | |
Heterman
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Fayetteville, AR | Re: Few people read them That is the telco telephone game. | |
| | Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON | 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. | |
| | | hurfy
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Spokane, WA
| Re: Few people read them Hmm, interesting point i wonder how much has changed. Wonder what the odds are of finding my orignal agreement from 7 years ago
This time they are telling us, must be a whopper of a change | |
| | | | 
TheGiant
Next Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Knoxville, TN
1 edit | Re: Few people read them That's great I guess I will have to include my own TOS on my check to qwest saying if you cash this you agree to pay me $5 for ever piece of spam that reaches my inbox from your e-mail server. | |
| | | | 
ewth8tr
Premium
join:2005-04-03
Salt Lake City, UT
| said by hurfy :Hmm, interesting point i wonder how much has changed. Wonder what the odds are of finding my orignal agreement from 7 years ago This time they are telling us, must be a whopper of a change lol, up until now, the "TOS" was a FCC Tariff, so I'm sure if anyone was curious, they could dig one up from the FCC or qwest. Here's the explanation from the FAQ on qwest's site.
Effective 11/16/2005 companies providing high-speed Internet access have the choice of continuing to provide terms and conditions that govern the service under FCC Tariff, or may use a commercial agreement. Qwest has made the decision to move, effective 1/28/06, to a commercial agreement to govern the Qwest® High-Speed Internet service.
»www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedint···aqs.html | |
| iowanews1
join:2004-04-07
Des Moines, IA
| Did anyone read the articles in the original post? From Top Tech News...
Claire Mylott, a Qwest spokeswoman, said Qwest sent its customers a letter in December saying its DSL service would not be regulated anymore by tariff. It then posted a new 14-page agreement on the Web outlining its service terms.
But the "acceptable use" policy on spam has existed for several years, Mylott said.
This is what I was talking about...it's been the rule for a long time! | |
| | caseyhb
join:2004-09-01 | Re: Did anyone read the articles in the original p So, if it's not under FCC Tariff anymore, then shouldn't I be paying a little bit less on my monthly bill? In other words, shouldn't they pass that savings along to the consumer, or have I misinterpreted what's going down? | |
| | | |
|
|
Users Actually Read Qwest's TOS
