Unlike reality, Second Life allows you to, for example: log off, teleport, take a screen shot of the incident to report it to admins (as opposed to "his word against yours" type situations), DENY an animation script if you believe said person is being abusive (mind you it may say it's a "hug" script and turn out to be something else).
This didn't happen in real life. This needs to be delt with on an administrative level. The most said person should be charged with is harassment if it continues after admins have banned him.
My previous dedicated hosting provider was somehow inner-twined for being a spammer, when I know they would have and probably did indeed delete said spammer's account and remove their server right away. And that's assuming they even had spammers in the first place!
The case I saw seemed to be that my host was a "Sister's Daughter's Pet's Vet's Mother's Husband" type relationship. And because I was on that host I was affected too! Thank god almost nobody that was receiving e-mail being sent through my server actually USED SPEWS.
While using a catchall can be nice, it also opens up an additional spamming hole, one that can get quite annoying:
Some spammers will start blindly sending e-mails to $foo@example.com where $foo is set by a list of common names. So imagine them bombarding you with tom@example.com, joe@example.com, kevin@example.com, etc.
True, there are many ideas that could work to stop DoS and DDos attacks and such, and they may not be implemented by everyone. But the key to this story may not be the TYPE of filtering, but WHO would REQUEST it.
Even if we did some sort of slashdot effect with e-mail, by e-mailing many ISPs, they don't have to do it, and may not even listen to us. They would have to listen to the routing authorities. It would be quite pointless to have an internet connection that you can't use.
The packets should be free, to a certain extent. Anything that can stop something that would be obviously illegal would be fine. Something like sniffing for text information would NOT. Even though it could MAYBE prevent terrorism, it'd just fall under the government needing encryption keys. If you DO think packets should be free and not filtered, it'd be like saying it's ok to yell "fire" in a crowd cause of free speech. "Free speech" doesn't constitute "clear and present danger", nor does the "freedom to transmit information" constitute "ip spoofing"
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike reality, Second Life allows you to, for example: log off, teleport, take a screen shot of the incident to report it to admins (as opposed to "his word against yours" type situations), DENY an animation script if you believe said person is being abusive (mind you it may say it's a "hug" script and turn out to be something else).
This didn't happen in real life. This needs to be delt with on an administrative level. The most said person should be charged with is harassment if it continues after admins have banned him.
I certainly can!
My previous dedicated hosting provider was somehow inner-twined for being a spammer, when I know they would have and probably did indeed delete said spammer's account and remove their server right away. And that's assuming they even had spammers in the first place!
The case I saw seemed to be that my host was a "Sister's Daughter's Pet's Vet's Mother's Husband" type relationship. And because I was on that host I was affected too! Thank god almost nobody that was receiving e-mail being sent through my server actually USED SPEWS.
The In The Groove court case was more targeted towards Roxor Games, the maker of the game rather than Red Octane, the distributer.
FTFA:
"What can't the Internet Freedom Disk do? Protect you from phishing scams."
But it uses Firefox. Is it perhaps using Pre-2.0 version without phishing checking, or maybe has it turned off?
While using a catchall can be nice, it also opens up an additional spamming hole, one that can get quite annoying:
Some spammers will start blindly sending e-mails to $foo@example.com where $foo is set by a list of common names. So imagine them bombarding you with tom@example.com, joe@example.com, kevin@example.com, etc.
True, there are many ideas that could work to stop DoS and DDos attacks and such, and they may not be implemented by everyone. But the key to this story may not be the TYPE of filtering, but WHO would REQUEST it.
Even if we did some sort of slashdot effect with e-mail, by e-mailing many ISPs, they don't have to do it, and may not even listen to us. They would have to listen to the routing authorities. It would be quite pointless to have an internet connection that you can't use.
The packets should be free, to a certain extent. Anything that can stop something that would be obviously illegal would be fine. Something like sniffing for text information would NOT. Even though it could MAYBE prevent terrorism, it'd just fall under the government needing encryption keys. If you DO think packets should be free and not filtered, it'd be like saying it's ok to yell "fire" in a crowd cause of free speech. "Free speech" doesn't constitute "clear and present danger", nor does the "freedom to transmit information" constitute "ip spoofing"