On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:36:55AM -0400, Atticus wrote:
Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to people, they would be more interested in helping you out.
And were it ten or fifteen years ago, I might agree with you.
But it's not. By now, everyone knows, or darn well should know, that abuse of all descriptions has long since passed the threshold of "epidemic" and is approaching "pervasive". With that in mind, everyone should also realize that it's their obligation to do anything/everything they can to assist the collaborative network community in (a) identifying abusers and (b) denying them services -- permanently.
Which means that if, for example, an entity is identified as being involved in network hijacking or phishing or spamming or whatever, that everything known about them should be published -- including scans of any paper documents involved. There is no reason to protect filth like this, and every reason to out them. They flourish, in large part, precisely because that *doesn't* happen.
And while Ron's bedside manner might be a little abrasive from time to time (and so's mine, so I'm not criticizing), he's a cupcake compared to kind of sociopaths we're up against. If you can't handle a few mildly toasty comments from him, then you're no match at all for them.
So the hell with his prose: focus on the matter at hand. Let's find out what happened here and how, who's responsible, and what it'll take to stop them from doing it again and again.
Because they will.
---rsk
Well put, but falling on deaf ears. "Oh, we are not the police" mantra is either an excuse for being an idiot or too anal to see what should be done. But when gov'ts will step in to make sure this type of issue is fixed in thye future, those same talking heads will be crying about how the Internet is now ruined. I've been down this path all too often to know you are tilting at windmills. Live with it. I do. -Hank