$500 REWARD FOR IDENTITY OF TROLL

Sounds like a case where some idiot has taunted a chained up dog, and
when the dog gets loose and bites said idiot in the ass he promptly
sues the dog's owner.

Sounds like a case where some idiot has taunted a chained up dog, and
when the dog gets loose and bites said idiot in the ass he promptly
sues the dog's owner.

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.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Lionel writes:

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

It's best to judge lawyers by results, not by credentials.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In news.groups, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} writes:

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.

Or someone who doesn't realize that they're running an open proxy. Not
that I have a lot of sympathy, but that's far and away the most common
reason why a block on open proxies would catch people who are not
themselves abusing an open proxy. This isn't an issue with e-mail, since
with e-mail you just tell people to use their ISP's mail server. But with
a place like Google, people *have* to connect directly, and while it would
be great in some abstract sense to have Google helping people clean up
their compromised Windows systems, man, I'd hate to have that support job.
(It may be necessary, mind. It would just also suck a lot.)

There's also the little problem that some of the blacklist operators, er,
lie. Or make, er, strategic alterations for personal reasons. Sure,
there are blacklists that *don't* do this, but I swear, it's getting to
the point where trying to figure out who you can listen to and who you
can't is a full-time job, since it keeps changing. And then people stop
running blacklists by setting the blacklist to reject everyone.

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

In news.groups, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} writes:

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.

Or someone who doesn't realize that they're running an open proxy. Not
that I have a lot of sympathy, but that's far and away the most common
reason why a block on open proxies would catch people who are not
themselves abusing an open proxy. This isn't an issue with e-mail, since
with e-mail you just tell people to use their ISP's mail server. But with
a place like Google, people *have* to connect directly, and while it would
be great in some abstract sense to have Google helping people clean up
their compromised Windows systems, man, I'd hate to have that support job.
(It may be necessary, mind. It would just also suck a lot.)

There's also the little problem that some of the blacklist operators, er,
lie. Or make, er, strategic alterations for personal reasons. Sure,
there are blacklists that *don't* do this, but I swear, it's getting to
the point where trying to figure out who you can listen to and who you
can't is a full-time job, since it keeps changing. And then people stop
running blacklists by setting the blacklist to reject everyone.

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

On 28 Feb 2005 04:19:00 GMT, ymous wrote:


If nobody has proof, please post who you suspect it to be. If a bunch of people
suspect the same person, that will be good enough for me to go find that person
and beat the crap out of him.

Your not GWB or one of his sidekicks are you?
eric phillips

On 28 Feb 2005 04:19:00 GMT, ymous wrote:


If nobody has proof, please post who you suspect it to be. If a bunch of people
suspect the same person, that will be good enough for me to go find that person
and beat the crap out of him.

Your not GWB or one of his sidekicks are you?
eric phillips

Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
On Wednesday, in article

"Mxsmanic" wrote:


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.


Another stupid septic that doesn't understand his own Constitution's
Amendments.


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


News Service Providers in the real world have to be very confident that a
reported defamation is baseless; that's why they employ Crack Legal
Teams.


Your real world must not include the USA. The 9th court of appeals ruled
in Batzel v Cremers that even *moderators* of discussion groups are not
liable.

This quote from the opinion is telling:
In particular, Congress adopted § 230(c) to overrule the
decision of a New York state court in Stratton Oakmont, 1995
WL 323710. Stratton Oakmont held that Prodigy, an Internet
access provider that ran a number of bulletin boards, could be
held responsible for libelous statements posted on its “Money
Talk” bulletin board by an unidentified person. Id. The court
relied on the fact that Prodigy held itself out as a service that
monitored its bulletin boards for offensive content and
removed such content. Id. at *2, *4. Prodigy used filtering
software and assigned board leaders to monitor the postings
on each bulletin board. Id. at *1-*2. Because of Prodigy’s
active role in monitoring its bulletin boards, the court found,
Prodigy was a publisher for purposes of state libel law and
therefore could be held liable for any defamatory statements
posted on the website. Id. at *4.

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"