oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
January 10th, @03:59PM
| reply to KeepOnRockin
Re: DSLR making S up again?
What I'm missing is I read the AUP and under the spam section there was no mention of worms or anything else.
This is what I'm looking at
quote:
All use of the Services will comply with the AUP, posted at »www.qwest.com/legal/. Among other
things, the AUP prohibits sending unsolicited e-mail messages, including bulk commercial advertising or informational announcements
(collectively, "Spam"), and Qwest will immediately terminate any account which Qwest believes is transmitting or is otherwise
connected with any Spam. You will pay Qwest's actual damages in any way arising from, or related to, any Spam transmitted by, or in
any way connected to, you, to the extent such actual damages can be reasonably calculated. If actual damages cannot be calculated
reasonably, you agree to pay Qwest liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars ($5.00) for each piece of Spam transmitted from or
otherwise connected with your account.
"any way connected to" looks to be translated by DSLR and everyone else into worms, but it doesn't actually mention that and unless I saw a history of enforcement along those lines I think DSLR and others freaking out are simply that...over-reacting to a very common clause in TOS/AUPs.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
 ·Cox HSI
| said by oliphant  :What I'm missing is I read the AUP and under the spam section there was no mention of worms or anything else. Worms are one way that systems are turned into spam-spewing systems. The point the DSLR article is raising, I think, is it right to charge users for spam if their system is zombified before a patch for a vulnerability is found?
For example... Say a worm was written to exploit the new WMF vulerability and before a fix is released, some one writes a worm that uses that vulnerability to install a trojan that runs as a spam generator. Should that user be charged for that spam?
That's the angle I gather...
--
Rand's Objectivism... Everything BUT objective. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
January 10th, @06:52PM
| They aren't saying, "are they right"...they're saying they can with no evidence that they can, will or even would.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by oliphant :They aren't saying, "are they right"...they're saying they can with no evidence that they can, will or even would. Well, considering the ToS is written as they usually are, to be as non-specific as possible, the ToS would give them the right ability to charge per spam message in any situation, regardless of if you are a zombie.
You will pay Qwest's actual damages in any way arising from, or related to, any Spam transmitted by, or in
any way connected to, you, to the extent such actual damages can be reasonably calculated. Seems pretty clear... You spam, we slap you with a "fine." It makes no distinction about how the spam is transmitted. If its simply connected to your account, say via your IP address, its your problem. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
January 10th, @07:09PM
| That's my point...DSLR eds take the ball and run with it until someone says something and they quickly change the article from "even if" to "users wonder".
My comments are more about DSLR's continuous editorializing and sensationalizing items (like when they blasted FIOS installers for breaking stuff when it wasn't them...then pulling the story), rather than just sticking to the facts, than the items themselves.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :What I'm missing is I read the AUP and under the spam section there was no mention of worms or anything else. This is what I'm looking at quote:
All use of the Services will comply with the AUP, posted at »www.qwest.com/legal/. Among other
things, the AUP prohibits sending unsolicited e-mail messages, including bulk commercial advertising or informational announcements
(collectively, "Spam"), and Qwest will immediately terminate any account which Qwest believes is transmitting or is otherwise
connected with any Spam. You will pay Qwest's actual damages in any way arising from, or related to, any Spam transmitted by, or in
any way connected to, you, to the extent such actual damages can be reasonably calculated. If actual damages cannot be calculated
reasonably, you agree to pay Qwest liquidated damages of five U.S. dollars ($5.00) for each piece of Spam transmitted from or
otherwise connected with your account.
"any way connected to" looks to be translated by DSLR and everyone else into worms, but it doesn't actually mention that and unless I saw a history of enforcement along those lines I think DSLR and others freaking out are simply that...over-reacting to a very common clause in TOS/AUPs. "in any connected to, you", I think it means, if they can prove it came from YOUR machine, not someone else's, then you are responsible. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| reply to oliphant
Yes, but is it DSLR editorializing or repeating user concerns from the various forums listed?
Users wonder: what if it's the result of oh, say a Windows WMF vulnerability infection? It clearly sounds like Qwest users have some concerns about this ToS section. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | DSLR ed CHANGED the news item to say that. It originally said something to the effect of "even if"...nothing about "users wonder".
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| said by oliphant :DSLR ed CHANGED the news item to say that. It originally said something to the effect of "even if"...nothing about "users wonder". Well, when I first read it, I saw the "users wonder" statement... While I don't doubt the possibility that it could have been edited, what I see now doesn't jive, so there's no way I can tell who is telling the truth.
Perhaps, though, the change was done to make it more clear that users in the forums are was prompted that question ?
I don't know though and I prefer not to take sides without all of the facts in front of me to review... I can only debate the article as it is now. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Which I'm guessing is why they changed it. |
|
MeanPeepsSuk
mmmMMMeaty
join:2004-11-21
Muddy Field
| reply to oliphant
I agree, Oliphant. Without the "spin" to help along the paranoids and the not-happy-no-matter-what-you-do types (which equates to more posts/traffic here), the topic more likely would be not so sensational.
So, Quest puts a clause in place that gives them the power to go after spammers (Good!). You know, the people that probably use 85% of the infrastructure, and the cost thereof gets passed onto you. (What? you thought Quest let that eat into their profits?).
I can think of many more angles why this is GOOD for the users.. but that would not be newsworthy here. |
|
