RuhigMan
@comerica.com |  reply to sobriquetnet
Re: Cudows SHADOW GEEK
If the law offers no prohibition toward an attack on me, it can not offer a prohibition on me defending myself. |
|
th34
join:2004-12-02
Houston, TX | reply to Habatus
Re: It's still DDOS
The screensavers dbase is manually checked-by people who go the the sites advertized in the spam-so unless your advertizing with spam, i wouldn't worry. |
|
th34
join:2004-12-02
Houston, TX
| reply to sobriquetnet
Re: Cudows SHADOW GEEK
Except that in this instance, your not going after their brother or sister, but the culprit, or culprits. And yeah, you damn well better believe it, if the authorities could not or would not bring them to justice, then going after them by ANY means necessary is fine by me. |
|
Habatus
@inet.fi
| reply to bmn
Re: It's still DDOS
I like the idea that you can make spammers life a bit more difficult, but there should be a considerable amount of research before a site is added as a target site.. For example my operator has been on a blacklist 2 times this year because of some technical whatnot. They have added spamfilters and done preventive measures, which they should.. But if this happens again and this operator is targeted by this screensaver the results would be quite bad since it will result in even bigger problems for this operator.. And think about if this screensaver could be reset by some nasty piece of code to do this same thing on "microsoft.xxx" or some other site. And maybe even do it with 10x normal traffic.. |
|
BoredofSpam
@209.161.x.x | reply to sobriquetnet
We're not talking about murder here. We're talking about Internet abuse. Is it ok for you to have to waste time in a huge company to find our which email is good and which are useless?
Don't mix apples and carrots... |
|
Talon88
The One
join:2003-08-13
Toronto
 ·Bell Sympatico
2 edits | reply to sobriquetnet
:::
Ths answer is yes if the law cannot kick the
person to the jail. He can do it & I can do
it as well....! 
:::
said by sobriquetnet:
>>
If someone murdered your sister/brother/partner/dog, would it then be ok for you to murder theirs?
--
[=Talon88=]
»DI-624 Firmware update w/ Crash Recovery Step by S --
»[Info] Some Clue about DI-624 Reboot |
|
sobriquetnet
@com.au
| reply to EoverMC2
>>Personally, I think ANY time someone intentionally take's
>>another's resources (computer time, disk or bandwidth)
>>against the owner wishes they've stepped over the line.
>You've just scored a point against your own argument - this
>is EXACTLY what spam does to my computer.
You're missing the point......... "ANY time" someone takes another's resources. It doesn't matter if they did it to you first.... it's still going too far.
If someone murdered your sister/brother/partner/dog, would it then be ok for you to murder theirs? |
|
EoverMC2
@insightBB.com | reply to ShadowGeek
Good POINT BVD |
|
ShadowGeek
@bellsouth.net
| reply to dalesplace
Re: It's still DDOS
>Personally, I think ANY time someone intentionally take's another's resources (computer time, disk or bandwidth) against the owner wishes they've stepped over the line.
You've just scored a point against your own argument - this is EXACTLY what spam does to my computer. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to dalesplace
said by dalesplace  :Hmmm ... sounds like you would also have to support RIAA and their goofy pet senator's bid to do the same to P2P users. After all, the P2P user D/L'ing a copyrighted work is breaking the law. Therefore, slowing down/blocking their computer is a substitution instance of your argument. The problem here is that the RIAA is not law enforcement... They have no authority, legally, to act as enforcers of copyright law. That right is specifically allocated to the government...
As well, the problem is that the RIAA does not differentiate between pirates and future customers... I can understand if they took out people who specifically pirate, but they problem is that they also want to eliminate users who download and then buy if the music is good (like myself).
As much as I like the idea of making the spammer's like miserable, I think this method is inappropriate. Personally, I think ANY time someone intentionally take's another's resources (computer time, disk or bandwidth) against the owner wishes they've stepped over the line.
You do, of course, recognize the parallel between this and what spammers are doing every time they send out SPAM, right ? As a server administrator and as a person who does IT work, the truth is that WE foot the bill for them because they send out mail we don't want, but are forced to deal with. And spam filters do cost money and time to setup and maintain.
--
SHUTUP!
Viva La Fee' Verte! |
|
dalesplace
join:2000-09-14
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | reply to bmn
Hmmm ... sounds like you would also have to support RIAA and their goofy pet senator's bid to do the same to P2P users. After all, the P2P user D/L'ing a copyrighted work is breaking the law. Therefore, slowing down/blocking their computer is a substitution instance of your argument.
As much as I like the idea of making the spammer's like miserable, I think this method is inappropriate. Personally, I think ANY time someone intentionally take's another's resources (computer time, disk or bandwidth) against the owner wishes they've stepped over the line. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | reply to Pony99CA
said by Pony99CA : So if one company decides to slow down a competitor's site, hoping people will get sick of waiting for a response and go to their site, that's cool with you, eh?  Nope its not cool isn't since its not even remotely really the same thing... In the case you are talking about using a technique to block a legitimate business who is acting within the law.
This case is about dealing with people who break laws and regulations and employ tactics that are at best, questionable in their legal status, to make money. This is a same group of people who have launched REAL DDoS attacks on RBLs and anti-spam sites, causing them to drop off the internet. This is a group of people who actually put a majority of the cost on people who are fighting and receiving spam by causing us to expend time and energy blocking their spew or deleting it from our inboxes...
Even if you say this only applies to spammer sites, it's a DDOS regardless of your protestations. Even sites undergoing a DDOS can be accessible to some users, so where do you draw the line between a DDOS and simply slowing a site down? Unfortunately there is no hard and fast number to determine the point at which a DDoS is a DDoS, but as long as no one is being prevented from accessing the site (denied service), its technically not a DDoS.
»searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sD···,00.html
"The flood of incoming messages to the target system essentially forces it to shut down, thereby denying service to the system to legitimate users."
--
SHUTUP!
Viva La Fee' Verte! |
|
Pony99CA
join:2004-09-05
Hollister, CA
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :AT that time they were only talking about bandwidth being used, thereby increasing the costs to spammers. At that time, there was no mention of them attempting to slow the sites down. Either way, so long at as the site is still accessible, there really is no problem. Really? So if one company decides to slow down a competitor's site, hoping people will get sick of waiting for a response and go to their site, that's cool with you, eh?
Even if you say this only applies to spammer sites, it's a DDOS regardless of your protestations. Even sites undergoing a DDOS can be accessible to some users, so where do you draw the line between a DDOS and simply slowing a site down?
I don't personally have a problem with this program, as spammers deserve any pain they get, but don't kid yourself that this isn't a DDOS. |
|
