|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 38 of 79:
| 
Jan 26 13:18 UTC 2004 |
I think that Cross's enthusiasm for blocking the accounts, IP
address ranges, and other means of access used by known vandals
is more appropriate than the current wimpy countermeasures.
I also think that Grex should pursue criminal charges against the
malefactors should a venue be found in which they can be made. At
the very least, Grex should attempt to have the ISP service of
the miscreants shut off under whatever conditions of use apply.
|
ryan
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Jan 26 13:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 79:
|
Jan 26 15:40 UTC 2004 |
Criminal charges? What law has been broken here?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 41 of 79:
|
Jan 26 15:56 UTC 2004 |
Certainly not one that the RCMP is going to care about.
Blocking them is rather pointless. They have enough IRC buddies to route
themselves through, that it wouldn't be much more than a minor inconvenience.
And you're almost begging them to enter more crap, just to demonstrate
how ineffective attempts at blocking them are.
How do I know this? I was on the Arbornet BoD when they were pulling the same
crap there, and I was all gung-ho on blocking them. I didn't believe trex when
he pointed out what I said in the paragraph above. I should have, because he
was right.
|
naftee
|
|
response 42 of 79:
|
Jan 26 16:58 UTC 2004 |
IRC buddies . heh.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 43 of 79:
|
Jan 26 17:15 UTC 2004 |
I thought "butt buddies" would be too puerile.
|
naftee
|
|
response 44 of 79:
|
Jan 26 21:50 UTC 2004 |
What, do you have problems with saying what you mean, twinkass?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 45 of 79:
|
Jan 26 21:55 UTC 2004 |
No. I just know that Grexers would take it as a sign of homophobia if I called
you a faggot.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 46 of 79:
|
Jan 26 23:10 UTC 2004 |
Re #38: I can't believe you used both "malefactors" and "miscreants" in
the same post. That's impressive, in a weird sort of way.
Re #41: What twinkie said. It won't work.
Re #45: Whereas M-Netters would know it's a sign of affection.
|
naftee
|
|
response 47 of 79:
|
Jan 27 01:09 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, twinkie should try to carry that attitude over onto GreX users. It's
the latest fad. Transfering m-net ideals, that is, not faggotry. Although
the fact that twinkie is here makes it pretty gay.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 48 of 79:
|
Jan 27 02:21 UTC 2004 |
Just can't get over your circle jerkin', can ya?
|
jp2
|
|
response 49 of 79:
|
Jan 27 02:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 50 of 79:
|
Jan 27 04:36 UTC 2004 |
re: 48 - Is it safe to say that when Grexers concur on something, they're
"circle jerkin'" as well?
|
ryan
|
|
response 51 of 79:
|
Jan 27 04:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Jan 27 16:07 UTC 2004 |
You have a problem with oral sex, chump?
|
russ
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Jan 28 00:32 UTC 2004 |
Re #41: There is this little thing called something like the
Computer Fraud and Misuse Act of 199x, which criminalizes the
unauthorized access to, or abuse of, computer systems.
I don't see why we can't just explicitly yank the authorization
of the abusers to access Grex, then we can start yanking the
chains of the abusers AND their enablers AND all their ISP's.
How hard would it be to get their IRC buddies disconnected?
How many buddies would they have after that happened?
How many would refuse to tell us who they are, faced with a
subpoena?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Jan 28 00:41 UTC 2004 |
I'm polytarp.
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:15 UTC 2004 |
If you allow anyone to create an account on a system, how can any access
to it be unauthorized?
|
ryan
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:41 UTC 2004 |
Happy GreX staffers...
How would you capture the IP address of the user when the full IP isn't
logged?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:58 UTC 2004 |
re: 53
You can't be serious. Please tell me you're playing devil's advocate here.
If they broke in to a system, destroyed a bunch of data, and caused serious
financial harm, you *might* be able to inflict the interstate and
multinational hellfire you're proposing.
But if you seriously think a judge is going to fire off a bunch of subpoenas
just because a handful of people in Birkenstocks show up to court and ask
nicely, you're sorely mistaken.
The Fraud and Misuse Act doesn't even come close to applying here. Right off
the bat, it says "Whoever knowingly accesses a computer without permission..."
Unless they were sent some sort of formal notice by Grex, they have permission
to use the system.
It continues to say "...with intent to defraud, or cause damage...". You'd
never prove in a million years that they intended to defraud anybody, and the
"damage" caused is so subjective, it would be laughed out of court.
You'd have an easier time accusing them of being Muslims using Grex as a
"cyberintelligence training ground" and nail them under the PATRIOT Act.
As far as their friends go, let's assume you've convinced an insane judge or
magistrate to subpoena ISP's for their names and addresses. Do you really
think they'll hop-to upon receipt? I can tell you from firsthand experience
at two ISP's that they won't. In fact, they'll probably send a letter back
that says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Sorry, but we're not about to violate
the First and Fourth Amendment rights of our customer. Come back with a
subpoena from a REAL court."
That none of this takes in to consideration the time and money it would take
just to go to court. It's not as though you'd receive any money, because they
didn't cause any monetary damage. (Well, unless you pull a fast one like
Arbornet did, and accuse them of magically breaking the hardware.)
I really don't think you're going to get legal gears spinning over a few pages
of text.
P.S., they probably get a great deal of enjoyment out of conversations like
this. Please, learn from Arbornet for once, and let it go.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:59 UTC 2004 |
resp:50 Could be, when they're desperate to prove the point. Sometimes
it's a duel between the Canucks and them anyways.
|
jp2
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Jan 28 02:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Jan 28 02:31 UTC 2004 |
I heard it was the misunderstanding by the court that got Arbornet so much
money.
|
styles
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Jan 28 03:43 UTC 2004 |
and le aa snooze.
|