$500 REWARD FOR IDENTITY OF TROLL

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:15:20 +0000 (GMT), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

On Tuesday, in article

"Big Bill" wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:45:39 +0000 (GMT), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:57:15 -0700, in article

"Big Bill" wrote:

So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject
posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued
libellous postings.

I have a problem with shutting out legitimate users on the chance that
you'll also shut out people who do things we don't like. Even illegal
things.

Why should a "legitimate" user have any need to go via an open proxy?
There is no reason not to go directly to the posting site; using a proxy
is either a vector for mischief, or someone attempting to circumvent his
employer's strictures against use of facilities not approved by policy.

This ISP has no legitimate users?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:06:46 +1100, Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:45:39 +0000 (GMT), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:57:15 -0700, in article

"Big Bill" wrote:

So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject
posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued
libellous postings.

I have a problem with shutting out legitimate users

Legitimate users don't routinely access their news provider via hijacked
SOCKS/HTTP proxies, in order to circumvent the providers Terms of
Service & security policies.

Blocking open proxies wouldn't impact Googles legitimate users in the
slightest, unless they were one of the idiots who owned one of the
poorly secured proxies, in which case lack of Usenet posting access via
Google would be the least of their problems.

That blocked ISP has no legitimate users?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:06:46 +1100, Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:45:39 +0000 (GMT), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:57:15 -0700, in article

"Big Bill" wrote:

So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject
posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued
libellous postings.

I have a problem with shutting out legitimate users

Legitimate users don't routinely access their news provider via hijacked
SOCKS/HTTP proxies, in order to circumvent the providers Terms of
Service & security policies.

Blocking open proxies wouldn't impact Googles legitimate users in the
slightest, unless they were one of the idiots who owned one of the
poorly secured proxies, in which case lack of Usenet posting access via
Google would be the least of their problems.

That blocked ISP has no legitimate users?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:59:16 +1100, Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:08:45 +1100, Lionel wrote:
Actually, it /is/ Googles problem, because the troll is posting from
Google itself, not from some random news service, & Google is preventing
victims of the troll's defamatory posts from taking legal action against
the troll.

[I should also have added here that Google refuse to enforce their
TOS/AUP against their problem-users. If they did, this situation
wouldn't have gotten as bad as it has.]

If the trail ends at an ISp that doesn't control who uses it as an
open relay, then Google, if subpoenaed, would run into that same dead
end, wouldn't it?
So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

Other than anonymous news gateways, (which don't permit their users to
impersonate others), Google is the only news provider I know of that
permits totally anonymous, non-authenticated posting privileges via open
proxies, with a unenforced AUP/TOS, & as many free accounts (&
identities) as a person can find time to create. This combination of
'features' makes Google a nirvana for spammers & psychos.

Which in no way answers my question.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:59:16 +1100, Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:08:45 +1100, Lionel wrote:
Actually, it /is/ Googles problem, because the troll is posting from
Google itself, not from some random news service, & Google is preventing
victims of the troll's defamatory posts from taking legal action against
the troll.

[I should also have added here that Google refuse to enforce their
TOS/AUP against their problem-users. If they did, this situation
wouldn't have gotten as bad as it has.]

If the trail ends at an ISp that doesn't control who uses it as an
open relay, then Google, if subpoenaed, would run into that same dead
end, wouldn't it?
So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

Other than anonymous news gateways, (which don't permit their users to
impersonate others), Google is the only news provider I know of that
permits totally anonymous, non-authenticated posting privileges via open
proxies, with a unenforced AUP/TOS, & as many free accounts (&
identities) as a person can find time to create. This combination of
'features' makes Google a nirvana for spammers & psychos.

Which in no way answers my question.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Kibo informs me that Mxsmanic stated that:

Lionel writes:

Legitimate users don't routinely access their news provider via hijacked
SOCKS/HTTP proxies, in order to circumvent the providers Terms of
Service & security policies.

Unless they live under an oppressive regime that wouldn't take kindly to
them exercising any freedom of speech.

They would still be able to use all the anonymous gateways.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Mxsmanic stated that:

Lionel writes:

Legitimate users don't routinely access their news provider via hijacked
SOCKS/HTTP proxies, in order to circumvent the providers Terms of
Service & security policies.

Unless they live under an oppressive regime that wouldn't take kindly to
them exercising any freedom of speech.

They would still be able to use all the anonymous gateways.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:06:46 +1100, Lionel wrote:
Blocking open proxies wouldn't impact Googles legitimate users in the
slightest, unless they were one of the idiots who owned one of the
poorly secured proxies, in which case lack of Usenet posting access via
Google would be the least of their problems.

That blocked ISP has no legitimate users?

We're talking about single machines, not entire ISPs.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:59:16 +1100, Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:
So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

Other than anonymous news gateways, (which don't permit their users to
impersonate others), Google is the only news provider I know of that
permits totally anonymous, non-authenticated posting privileges via open
proxies, with a unenforced AUP/TOS, & as many free accounts (&
identities) as a person can find time to create. This combination of
'features' makes Google a nirvana for spammers & psychos.

Which in no way answers my question.

I'll rephrase: Other than anonymous remailer/gateways, news providers
have some way of tracking illegal activities back to the culprit -
Google doesn't.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:59:16 +1100, Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Big Bill stated that:
So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp?

Other than anonymous news gateways, (which don't permit their users to
impersonate others), Google is the only news provider I know of that
permits totally anonymous, non-authenticated posting privileges via open
proxies, with a unenforced AUP/TOS, & as many free accounts (&
identities) as a person can find time to create. This combination of
'features' makes Google a nirvana for spammers & psychos.

Which in no way answers my question.

I'll rephrase: Other than anonymous remailer/gateways, news providers
have some way of tracking illegal activities back to the culprit -
Google doesn't.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------