Slashdot Mirror
Washington Post Blog Shuts Down 75% of Online Spam
ESCquire writes "Apparently, the Washington Post Blog 'Security Fix' managed to shut down McColo, a US-based hosting provider facilitating more than 75 percent of global spam. " Now how long before the void is filled by another ISP?
the spam will flow. It's the old "balloon dog" effect. Squeeze it in one place and it balloons in another. The ONLY way to attack this problem is to go after the advertisers who are willing to use spam as a medium to sell product.
While many have an opinion otherwise, the fact is United States based internet service providers are protected by common carrier laws.
While shutting down this ISP may have slowed the spam for today, the two fundamental flaws remain:
Also FTA:
'Two hours later, I heard from Benny Ng, director of marketing for Hurricane Electric, the Fremont, Calif., company that was the other major Internet provider for McColo.
Hurricane Electric took a much stronger public stance: "We shut them down," Ng said.
"We looked into it a bit, saw the size and scope of the problem you were reporting and said 'Holy cow! Within the hour we had terminated all of our connections to them."'
So, after much hand-waving here, and elsewhere, about what info the Gov. and your ISP may be collecting about you, they could not spot this, a major spam, child-porn and theft site?
Maybe the honest version would be;
"We were making shitloads of money out of selling bandwidth to these bastards, 'no questions asked', but now you've blown the whistle on them I guess we've gotta look responsible."
I have come to the conclusion that it must be impossible to engage in any criminal activity which does not somehow involve child porn, as it seems to me that all stories of illicit behavior include accusations of trafficking in child porn.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I certainly hope The Washingto Post doesn't have to do the job of the Federal Authorities in the future.
I think this quote down on the third page was probably the best, from a Trend Micro researcher (emphasis mine):
Anyone wanna guess how much faster would they have been taken down had they been hosting RIAA or MPAA copyrighted works?
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
Did you just fill that in at random, or what?
I don't see how providing evidence to the government is "vigilante justice". On the contrary it is government justice which is what government is there to provide.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
As for the other stuff, in a world scripted by Tom Clancy the supervillians simply switch to their backup systems. However in reality shutting down something that has taken a long time to establish can stop them for a long time and can open them up to exposure when they are trying to do it again.
Be careful what you wish for.
I'd like to suggest quite the opposite, that this is the way it should be. Do not trust the government to protect your interests in this regard. Time and time again they've been proven slow, incapable, and even corrupt.
Meanwhile, it is private groups, reporters, etc. that keep things in check. While this system is far from perfect, it's certainly better than the government as the sole "protector" of our interests.
Even child molesters have the right to not be beaten to a pulp. For one thing, the *alleged* child molester might be falsely-accused and completely innocent. Such judgments should be made in a neutral environment by due process of law (court system), not by people on the street. Therefore I would act to stop a so-called molester from being beaten - you can take him into custody without turning him into a corpse.
Discussing this issue reminds me of the guy who was beaten in Chicago(?) and then just left to lay there and suffer, while thousands of people walked past him & ignored his plight. You don't just "let the government help him". You use your individual liberty to take the initiative, call an ambulance, and help stop the bleeding.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Well, besides the USSC ruling that the police are not obligated to protect/defend you, or come to your aid, it's one of those "basic human decency" things. I don't know if I'd use the word "responsibility," but a decent person probably wouldn't say "meh, not my problem" and walk away.
I've never understood the "you can't defend yourself or stop a crime in progress, that's the police's job" mentality. I mean, are we supposed to sit there and be dependent on daddy government for every single thing? Yes, if the police are there and doing something about it, stay out of their way unless they ask for your help. But if they haven't gotten there yet, do something about it!
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
>>>>>The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to the lazy.
>>... nor is its purpose to raid lower- and middle-class people's wallets and give it to the rich...
No shit Sherlock. The common flaw with any of these actions is this - it's theft. Which is why I was strongly opposed to the 700 billion THEFT of taxpayer dollars to give to rich Wall Street fat slobs. And why I voted-out the politicians who voted "aye" to the bill.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
I can't stand those rich Wall Street fat slobs either (really - I just loath them), but the problem is, that if all the rich suddenly get broke and poor, the middle class (that's me, and - I guess - you) is screwed just as well, because the complete system breaks down.
Of course, one could say screw the system, let the world burn, but the problem is, once the fire goes out, the same rich fat slobs shall crawl out of their lairs and take over the world again, just as if nothing happened.
One more thing: I'm not a US citizen, so I might be wrong on who woted "aye" to the questionable bill, but I seem to remember, that it was just about everybody and their dogs (at least in the second round). So, whom did you really vote out?