A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

$500 REWARD FOR IDENTITY OF TROLL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old March 2nd 05, 11:36 AM
Matthew Montchalin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill wrote:
|Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought
|to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely
|intense any way you look at it.
|
|]IMO, you're asking for something you really don't want, unless you're
|a big fan of censorship.
|Once you ask someone like Google to start reading posts to judge the
|quality thereof, you're asking them to make judgement calls;

Yet Google appears to employ a 'relevance' formula for ranking its
data prior to publication, so how can Google say its archives are not
subject to any internal review? When it comes to coin collecting,
this whole tort might well have been avoided if the 'relevance'
formula had buried the allegations of incompetence or fraud at the
bottom of a 10,000 hit search. Of course, Google wouldn't be making
as much money if it did that sort of thing, inflammatory innuendo
and libel being so much more profitable.

|this is almost never a good thing. To counter that 'not a good thing',
|you'll need governmental intervention, which is universally a "bad
|thing".

If you don't want the government to do it, how about just having
Google's own insurance company evaluate the posts prior to publication?
After all, this whole thing appears to come off sounding in tort,
which is a civil matter (unless it turns out that government employees,
somewhere, are the ones that are libeling people, in conjunction with
Google's own employees).

|Not to mention trying to determine which government you'd like to have
|doing the intervention.

Or, I guess, which insurance company...

  #52  
Old March 2nd 05, 11:36 AM
Matthew Montchalin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill wrote:
|Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought
|to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely
|intense any way you look at it.
|
|]IMO, you're asking for something you really don't want, unless you're
|a big fan of censorship.
|Once you ask someone like Google to start reading posts to judge the
|quality thereof, you're asking them to make judgement calls;

Yet Google appears to employ a 'relevance' formula for ranking its
data prior to publication, so how can Google say its archives are not
subject to any internal review? When it comes to coin collecting,
this whole tort might well have been avoided if the 'relevance'
formula had buried the allegations of incompetence or fraud at the
bottom of a 10,000 hit search. Of course, Google wouldn't be making
as much money if it did that sort of thing, inflammatory innuendo
and libel being so much more profitable.

|this is almost never a good thing. To counter that 'not a good thing',
|you'll need governmental intervention, which is universally a "bad
|thing".

If you don't want the government to do it, how about just having
Google's own insurance company evaluate the posts prior to publication?
After all, this whole thing appears to come off sounding in tort,
which is a civil matter (unless it turns out that government employees,
somewhere, are the ones that are libeling people, in conjunction with
Google's own employees).

|Not to mention trying to determine which government you'd like to have
|doing the intervention.

Or, I guess, which insurance company...

  #53  
Old March 2nd 05, 11:59 AM
Lionel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
  #54  
Old March 2nd 05, 11:59 AM
Lionel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
  #57  
Old March 2nd 05, 05:46 PM
cjp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Kibo informs me that Mxsmanic stated that:

Lionel writes:

Yes - simple, & remarkably stupid too:
(1) Unless a Australian judge decides to flout 150+ years of Australian
& British legal precedent, the posts will most definitely be judged
highly defamatory.


When they are, then Google can be required or requested to remove them.
Until that time, removing posts just because someone objects to them
raises serious First Amendment questions, at least in the U.S.


The USA doesn't /quite/ run the entire world yet.

Accusations of defamation are legion on USENET, and they are usually
baseless.


Nothing personal, but I give greater credence to legal advice from
lawyers, rather than that from random Usenet posters.

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





I'm sure that I'm not the only person who wishes that you would stop whining
like an aggrieved schoolboy, and actually *do* something about your imagined
slight.

Personally, I hope that the court takes the view that you are a censorious
tosser with an grotesquely inflated sense of your own importance, but that's
just my opinion.

Try not to sue me, thanks.


  #58  
Old March 2nd 05, 05:46 PM
cjp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Kibo informs me that Mxsmanic stated that:

Lionel writes:

Yes - simple, & remarkably stupid too:
(1) Unless a Australian judge decides to flout 150+ years of Australian
& British legal precedent, the posts will most definitely be judged
highly defamatory.


When they are, then Google can be required or requested to remove them.
Until that time, removing posts just because someone objects to them
raises serious First Amendment questions, at least in the U.S.


The USA doesn't /quite/ run the entire world yet.

Accusations of defamation are legion on USENET, and they are usually
baseless.


Nothing personal, but I give greater credence to legal advice from
lawyers, rather than that from random Usenet posters.

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





I'm sure that I'm not the only person who wishes that you would stop whining
like an aggrieved schoolboy, and actually *do* something about your imagined
slight.

Personally, I hope that the court takes the view that you are a censorious
tosser with an grotesquely inflated sense of your own importance, but that's
just my opinion.

Try not to sue me, thanks.


  #59  
Old March 2nd 05, 05:56 PM
Russ Allbery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In news.groups, cjp writes:

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who wishes that you would stop
whining like an aggrieved schoolboy, and actually *do* something about
your imagined slight.


This is a particularly pointless thing to say about a pending lawsuit,
given that lawsuits of this sort routinely take several years to play out.
He may very well be doing things right now; we don't have any way of
knowing.

I'll also point out that it's not like Lionel is the one who's continuing
this thread. He actually stopped posting to it for quite a while. If you
want the thread to go away, I think you're preaching to the choir.

You could just killfile the whole thing pretty easily, you know. There
are several great general killfile criteria that would work: anything
crossposted to news.admin.net-abuse.*, any thread whose subject is in all
caps, and any thread whose subject contains the word "troll" are all
excellent criteria to use to make a lot of groups look cleaner.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
  #60  
Old March 2nd 05, 05:56 PM
Russ Allbery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In news.groups, cjp writes:

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who wishes that you would stop
whining like an aggrieved schoolboy, and actually *do* something about
your imagined slight.


This is a particularly pointless thing to say about a pending lawsuit,
given that lawsuits of this sort routinely take several years to play out.
He may very well be doing things right now; we don't have any way of
knowing.

I'll also point out that it's not like Lionel is the one who's continuing
this thread. He actually stopped posting to it for quite a while. If you
want the thread to go away, I think you're preaching to the choir.

You could just killfile the whole thing pretty easily, you know. There
are several great general killfile criteria that would work: anything
crossposted to news.admin.net-abuse.*, any thread whose subject is in all
caps, and any thread whose subject contains the word "troll" are all
excellent criteria to use to make a lot of groups look cleaner.

--
Russ Allbery ) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beware of Troll Alert! Lewis Lang Digital Photography 6 February 10th 05 12:04 AM
CASH REWARD by camera merchant - $500 [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 2 August 11th 04 06:44 PM
CASH REWARD by camera retailer - $500 [email protected] Medium Format Photography Equipment 0 August 11th 04 04:27 PM
CASH REWARD by photo retailer - $500 [email protected] In The Darkroom 0 August 11th 04 04:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.