proposed press release, 2nd draft
sine nomine
--
The USENet community has reacted strongly to advertisements posted by
Canter & Siegel, and the intensity of that reaction might be confusing
to those unfamiliar with the 'net, as might the actions taken by
individuals attempting to prevent abuse of the 'net.
"USENet" refers not to the entire network of computers that make up
the world-wide Internet, but only to the conferencing areas of the
Internet -- the self-policing hierarchy of topical newsgroups. The
USENet comprises about 6000 newsgroups where people all over the world
read and write messages on topics of interest.
Defining "net abuse" is tricky because the USENet is a cooperative
endeavor. Its informal rules work because when people behave in ways
that threaten the implicit social contract, their service
providers/sysadmins explain to them how their behavior has stepped
out of bounds and take steps to prevent recurrences. Because the
USENet community places a high value on freedom of expression, the
understood rules are vague and borderline cases can be confusing.
Were the actions of CSLaw net abuse? What causes them to fall into
this classification? Several people have suggested metaphors and
analogies to help those who don't read the USENet understand exactly
why so many people took umbrage at Canter & Siegel's postings.
"Imagine someone who's checked into a hotel that offers free local
calls making 6000 calls to you on your cellular phone. They don't pay
a dime, and you have to pay for listening to advertisements you don't
want."
"USENet is like a convention center with thousands of meetings going on
all at once. Anyone's free to drop in on whatever discussion interests
them. It's like C&S hired an army of people to stick their heads in
every doorway and all scream 'GREEN CARD LOTTERY' all at once. It
was disruptive and annoying."
What CSLaw did is popularly known on the USENet as "spamming."
Basically, they posted messages about their service to every newsgroup
they could reach. These messages were off-topic in most of the target
groups and violated traditions against commercial advertisement on the
USENet. Canter and Siegel posted their message to 6000 newsgroups.
Even if the message were only 1200 bytes (about 200 words) long, the
way they posted means they took up *12 megs* (about 12 million
characters) of space on the hard drives of everyone in the world who
receives a full USENet feed. When CSLaw refers to the USENet as a
low-cost method of advertising, what they mean is that the cost to the
poster is low. As has been pointed out on the 'net, messages don't
travel by magic. People pay for the machines and drive space and
telephone lines that allow the 'net to happen.
It's not the first time someone's had the bright idea of advertising
on the USENet. In fact, there's an entire newsgroup hierarchy for
advertisements (biz.*), and many people don't object to advertisers
setting up sites on the web or other Internet facilities, in places
where people who don't choose to read the ads won't be bothered by
them.
Appropriate behavior isn't considered spamming. What Canter and Siegel
did is -- they spammed repeatedly, from different sites. Not only
that, they bragged to the press about their flouting of net policies
(including those policies explained to users by netcom, one of their
service providers) and stated their intention to repeat this behavior
in the future. It became apparent to users of the 'net that the usual
means of dealing with those who abuse the net just weren't going to
work. That's when options for dealing with the next C&S spam attack
were formulated.
It's important to note that when the subject has been discussed (and
hundreds of people have participated in discussing the episode for
weeks), no one suggests that CSLaw be banned from the 'net *provided*
they agree to abide by the rules. They've made it clear that they have
no intention of abiding by those rules.
To return to the convention center analogy, they've warned us that
they're going to hire yet another army (and tell other people where to
find one) to storm the group meetings. So we're trying to find ways to
bar the doors.
"Mailbombing" has gotten a lot of discussion. This involves sending
multiple copies of large files to the offenders in kind of a "you want
to take up huge amounts of my hard drive with your drivel; let me
return the favor" mindset. It's often effective -- the site from which
a recent (nonC&S) spam originated had to shut down temporarily because
of the volume of complaint mail received.
Another tactic used to fight spam involves canceling the articles --
sending out special messages which cause all sites to delete the spam.
This is tricky, because cancels may not prevent the offensive articles
from being received in the first place. To maximize the effectiveness
of this approach, many 'netters have been keeping track of where CSLaw
is maintaining Internet accounts.
'Netters are also using more conventional approaches. One user wrote a
program that automatically generates fake postal addresses. He
suggested that others use this program and respond to spam by asking
for more information. Once advertisers realize how high the false
positive rate is, and how difficult it is to sort out these fake
responses, they'll find 'net advertisements less attractive. Several
people have added the line, "I BOYCOTT ANY COMPANY THAT ADVERTISES ON
THE INTERNET" to their posts.
Some have complained about so-called "cyberspace vigilantes." The
metaphor does not fit this situation. People are not trying to harm
CSLaw or Canter and Siegel. All they're doing is asking that they not
be allowed to violate the USENet community. If it's vigilantism to ask
that people confine their activities to designated areas, then every
business and school and hospital in the country is run by vigilantes,
too.
Trif
sine nomine <ll...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>thanks for all the input. here's a proposed second draft.
>
>the world-wide Internet, but only to the conferencing areas of the
>Internet -- the self-policing hierarchy of topical newsgroups. The
>USENet comprises about 6000 newsgroups where people all over the world
>read and write messages on topics of interest.
Bzzt. Rewind. Usenet is *not* part of the Internet. Parts of Usenet
flow over parts of the Internet, and that is *all* they have in common.
Usenet is bigger than the Internet, and a completely different beast
to boot.
K. M. Finnegan
wrote:
Nope. Usenet is not bigger than the Internet, and the Internet is not
bigger than Usenet. Usenet is a collection of intangible forums and
much ranting, hosted on machines which are logically connected to each
other.
The Internet is simply a physical medium used to make the logical
connection and propagate the drivel. Usenet is not the only game in
town on the Internet, it's more like a public Prodigy, only more
useful, and with no advertisements. ;-) Did I really say that? :-P
--
get in / sit down / shut up / hold on
John Stanley
>the world-wide Internet,
That part is correct.
>but only to the conferencing areas of the Internet
This is stupidly wrong. It includes the "conferencing areas" of UUCP and
a host of other networks, as well.
If the rest of this is as accurate as this part, I don't need to read
further. Please don't actually send this to anyone, you will only be
spreading misinformation.
Trif
You're still creating the impression that Usenet is part of the Internet,
which is simply not true. The Internet is only *one* of the networks
that Usenet uses for propogation.
Saying that "Usenet refers [...] to the conferencing areas of the Internet"
implies that Usenet is part of the Internet, which it is not.
K. M. Finnegan
d...@u.washington.edu (Trif) wrote:
> K. M. Finnegan <Kenneth....@nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
> >d...@u.washington.edu (Trif) wrote:
> >> sine nomine <ll...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >> >"USENet" refers not to the entire network of computers that make up
> >> >the world-wide Internet, but only to the conferencing areas of the
> >> >Internet -- the self-policing hierarchy of topical newsgroups. The
> >> Bzzt. Rewind. Usenet is *not* part of the Internet. Parts of Usenet
> >> flow over parts of the Internet, and that is *all* they have in common.
> >> Usenet is bigger than the Internet, and a completely different beast
> >> to boot.
> >The Internet is simply a physical medium used to make the logical
> >connection and propagate the drivel. Usenet is not the only game in
> >town on the Internet, it's more like a public Prodigy, only more
> >useful, and with no advertisements. ;-) Did I really say that? :-P
>
> You're still creating the impression that Usenet is part of the Internet,
> which is simply not true. The Internet is only *one* of the networks
> that Usenet uses for propogation.
Hence my statment that the Internet is simply A physical medium used
to establish the logical connection." Sorry I wasn't more explicit,
but the entire point of my post was supposed to be that neither Usenet
or the Internet are subsets of the other, nor does one depend completely
on the other to function.
Charles Lindsey
>Hence my statment that the Internet is simply A physical medium used
>to establish the logical connection." Sorry I wasn't more explicit,
>but the entire point of my post was supposed to be that neither Usenet
>or the Internet are subsets of the other, nor does one depend completely
>on the other to function.
NO!
The internet is just ONE of many physical media used to establish the
logical connection.
For example, my site is not on the internet (I do have a friendly dialup
site than can give me genuine internet access if I want it, but that is
another story). I receive my news by good ol'fashioned uucp.
Likewise, Janet (in its 'coloured book' form, not including its JIPS subset)
is not part of the internet, but it carries much news.
--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
At Home, doing my own thing. Internet: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506 Janet: c...@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. UUCP: mucs!clerew!chl
Kevin Darcy
>
>--
>
>
>"USENet" refers not to the entire network of computers that make up
>the world-wide Internet, but only to the conferencing areas of the
>Internet -- the self-policing hierarchy of topical newsgroups.
May I suggest an alternative:
"USENet" refers not to the network of computers that make up the
world-wide Internet, but to a conferencing system which is carried by
the Internet and other media. It is structured as a self-policing
hierarchy of topical newsgroups.
Also, please ask yourself about the technical level of the audience you want
this press release to reach. You take great care, for instance, to explain
that "12 megs" is "about 12 million characters", which suggests a virtually
techno-illiterate audience, but at the same time you make references to "drive
space" (without specifying that you're talking about *disk* drives),
"telephone lines" (without explaining what on earth telephone lines have to do
with news), "newsgroup hierarchy" (without explaining the tree-like
hierarchical structure of news), and "setting up sites on the web". If your
audience is techno-illiterate, then you need to either carefully explain such
terms, or steer away from their use towards more general ones. You might, for
instance, say just "computing resources" instead of referring to drive space
and telephone lines; "area of USENet" instead of "newsgroup hierarchy"; and
"making their information available on the Internet" instead of "setting up
sites on the web or other Internet facilities".
- Kevin
Mark Thompson
: Also, please ask yourself about the technical level of the audience you want
: this press release to reach. You take great care, for instance, to explain
: that "12 megs" is "about 12 million characters", which suggests a virtually
: techno-illiterate audience, but at the same time you make references to "drive
pages of typed A4 (or whatever paper size the yanks use, if you prefer)?
Saying 12 000 (for instance) pages of typed A4 seems a lot more
meaningful to me than 12 million characters, so I should think it would be
grasped a lot more easily by the man on the Clapham omnibus.
I read in the New Scientist that "a page" of ascii takes up about 4K,
so 12 megs becomes about 3000 pages of text. I don't know what size of page
that refers to, but I assume A4.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Thompson - ICL "Let's go to work..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~