DAl Net HAs caved
Sailor
microsoft and the music industry by disallowing file servers to bad.
No Guts no glory Dalnet
|{evin
wrote:
>Seems a great bastion of internet freedom has caved in to the likes of
>microsoft and the music industry by disallowing file servers to bad.
>
>No Guts no glory Dalnet
>
Actually, it's more like 'the DALnet IRC (that's internet relay CHAT)
network has decided to go back to running a CHAT network instead of a
filesharing network'
Brian S
> Actually, it's more like 'the DALnet IRC (that's internet relay CHAT)
> network has decided to go back to running a CHAT network instead of a
> filesharing network'
Indeed. If people want to trade/share files, there are many things that
are more suited to the task.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Smith // avalon73 at arthurian dot nu // http://www.arthurian.nu/
Software Developer // Gamer // Webmaster // System Administrator
"Senate, n.: A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and
misdemeanors." -- Ambrose Bierce
Delta5
creditcard and porn pwd channels to mention a few. Dalnet isnt cleaned up
yet by a long shot...
Delta5
Founder
USAchat Network
irc.usachat.net
www.usachat.net
Joel
>They have not banned all file servers lol. They are still allowing stolen
>creditcard and porn pwd channels to mention a few. Dalnet isnt cleaned up
>yet by a long shot...
Maybe that's because they're not a joke of a network and they have to
apply rules consistently? Stay on your farm club network and you
won't have to worry about shady channels or running an efficient IRCd.
Run a large network and we'll see how well you do.
--
Joel Crump
Delta5
Effiecient is a relative term and a matter of opinion. Dalnet has so much
hacking and abuse going on that you cant even chat in most of the chat
channels. I just love going into a "chat" channel and watching 2 or 3 bots
kicking and banning clones, spammers, and drones etc every 2 or 3 seconds.
You cant even carry on a real chat. Even my little "farm club" network has
more security than dalnet does. At least we have session limits lol. I would
still like to know why file serving channels were banned and then all of a
sudden the ddos attacks have stopped on dalnet. Did they cut a deal with the
attackers?
Emma
"Delta5" <admin@(remove)usachat.net> wrote in message
news:GCGga.1886$lf3.3...@cletus.bright.net...
> more security than dalnet does. At least we have session limits lol. I
would
> still like to know why file serving channels were banned and then all of a
> sudden the ddos attacks have stopped on dalnet. Did they cut a deal with
the
> attackers?
Do you have massive DDoS on your network on an almost daily basis? If so,
why can't your network's security handle them? If not, did you cut a deal
with the attackers?
I'm sorry to say that your logic and debate is spurious.
Emma
Dave
Current Local Users: 32 Max: 49
Current Global Users: 43 Max: 56
Not half you do. Limited to 43 users.
Michael
Emma,
Ever stop to ask yourself why DALnet seems to get its more than fair share of attacks? Keep running the network in the ground and sticking your head in the sand and seeking comfort in your oper only channels, it will break one day.
michael
Rick
I guess you're not going to answer my question, are you?
Jomathan Jones
to all PORN transfers doesn't quite make sence. But then who am I,
Just a person that is thankfull to have left DalNET, (PornNET)
Joel
>Well Joel,
>
>Effiecient is a relative term and a matter of opinion. Dalnet has so much
>hacking and abuse going on that you cant even chat in most of the chat
>channels. I just love going into a "chat" channel and watching 2 or 3 bots
>kicking and banning clones, spammers, and drones etc every 2 or 3 seconds.
>You cant even carry on a real chat. Even my little "farm club" network has
>more security than dalnet does. At least we have session limits lol.
It's a lot easier for you to control the content of your network than
it is for DALnet. Period. DALnet has done a lot to increase
security, but in the end, it's a cat and mouse game. They have
thousands of times the number of users that your network has.
>I would
>still like to know why file serving channels were banned and then all of a
>sudden the ddos attacks have stopped on dalnet. Did they cut a deal with the
>attackers?
Does that really sound like something that DALnet would do?
--
Joel Crump
Lance
dalnets not under attack _daily_ so hush...
"Emma" <cu...@clothes.dal.net> wrote in message
news:b5vn5u$tuk$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Joel
>curve go take a hike will ya...
>dalnets not under attack _daily_ so hush...
Since you have so much inside info, would you be willing to help catch
these perpetrators? If not, kindly "go take a hike". No need to post
here, if all it will accomplish is taking away from your time smoking
crack with your lame friends.
--
Joel Crump
Michael
* rolls his eyes *
Of course DALnet isnt under attack. If an attacker attacked DALnet, thus the major businesses that sponsor DALnet, and the FBI was indeed involved, we would see an arrest by now. And before you read from a paper someone gave you on how DDoS works and try to present yourself as some " techie ", yes I understand the nature of the atatck is hard to track..... but it is * NOT * impossible.
Now, having said all this, I am sure that there exist persons that dislike DALnet and do arbitrary things and say " they attack " DALnet, but the coordinated effort that would have been required to do what it did to DALnet two months ago would have caused major outages at the sponsors level as well, and I simply think this would have prompted a MAJOR investigation that would have let to the identity(s) of the individuals involved.
DAL.net by way of Sven Nielsen has access to some very gifted individuals ( security admin at SDSL for one ) who have the expert training to deal with this matter, so.... you do the math.
The fact is, the current DALnet staff in place are lazy, closed-minded individuals who appear to be nothing more than vanity OPs and I look forward to Sven and Aaron getting the network back the way it was four years ago in terms of expertise in networking, ircd development, etc... instead of presenting love letters to the ezine at a time of uncertainty on the network.
michael
Michael
Um, I believe my post was meant to be on your side, but how dare I think someone else on this list has the guts to stand up to one of the DALnet admins.
As for the smoking crack and having lame friends, as well as the assertions that I dont use correct slang and cant spell... If thats all you can attack me on then I believe it clearly points out that you cant deny what I am saying is wrong and you simply have to resort to 18 yr old tactics of trying to make someone look bad in an effort to get on the side of the admins and hope youll get a O:line one day.
/me hands Joel some KY to get hi head out od Emma's ass.
Joel
>On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:06:00 -0500
>Joel <joel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Lance" <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>> >curve go take a hike will ya...
>> >dalnets not under attack _daily_ so hush...
>>
>> Since you have so much inside info, would you be willing to help catch
>> these perpetrators? If not, kindly "go take a hike". No need to post
>> here, if all it will accomplish is taking away from your time smoking
>> crack with your lame friends.
>
>
>As for the smoking crack and having lame friends, as well as the assertions that I dont use correct slang and cant spell... If thats all you can attack me on then I believe it clearly points out that you cant deny what I am saying is wrong and you simply have to resort to 18 yr old tactics of trying to make someone look bad in an effort to get on the side of the admins and hope youll get a O:line one day.
>
>/me hands Joel some KY to get hi head out od Emma's ass.
Uhh, is your name Lance? If so, you've just admitted to being nothing
more than a sock puppet. If not, you're even more moronic than
previously known. Get your glasses checked.
--
Joel Crump
Michael
Again, if all you can do is call names then you have effectively taken yourself out of the intellectual talk that is going on here. People who happen to disagree with a DALnet admin or the pratices of the current DALnet administration dont have to be " bad " people. I dont happen to agree with your side either, but thank god I dont resort to calling you names and being stupid. I do however happen to think your mentality is in tandem with say... Microsoft's thinking that we are right, and if you use one of those other OSes your bad... which has proven to be a very dangerous thinking process. As for catching whoever did it, that would require me to have access to the border router logs, server logs, and real time routing tables at the time of the attack. Obviously, I dont, nor will I have access to this, so its a mute point.
Joel, if you really want to " get back at me " or show the admins that your a viable person, show me that I'm wrong instead of calling names. Now, go take a 5 minute timeout.
michael
egor
You are not forced to connect to a network, so how can you thankful to
leave?
Its a personal decision, so you are thanking yourself...
----
egor
egor
"Michael" <nos...@localhost.gov> wrote in message
news:20030328104411....@localhost.gov...
> Again, if all you can do is call names then you have effectively taken
yourself out of the intellectual talk that is going on here. People who
happen to disagree with a DALnet admin or the pratices of the current DALnet
administration dont have to be " bad " people. I dont happen to agree with
your side either, but thank god I dont resort to calling you names and being
stupid. I do however happen to think your mentality is in tandem with say...
Microsoft's thinking that we are right, and if you use one of those other
OSes your bad... which has proven to be a very dangerous thinking process.
As for catching whoever did it, that would require me to have access to the
border router logs, server logs, and real time routing tables at the time of
the attack. Obviously, I dont, nor will I have access to this, so its a
mute point.
> Joel, if you really want to " get back at me " or show the admins that
your a viable person, show me that I'm wrong instead of calling names. Now,
go take a 5 minute timeout.
>
> michael
ok, i think the point you are missing, is that you replyed to a post that
(for once) was not critising (i will learn how to spell that some time) you,
which is why you were called moronic.
I don't remember calling you names, if anything you are the one incapable of
constructing an arguemnt, espicially when you resort to posting things such
as..
>/me hands Joel some KY to get hi head out od Emma's ass.
as for
>show me that you cant fight me on the technical aspects of what I am saying
all i see you doing is saying you don't like the administration of DALnet,
there isn't anything particularly technical about that, its subjective.
You said "DALnet" belongs to the people, becuase without them i would be
nothing. This is a fair enough point, but obviously a lot of the people are
quite happy with the way it is run. This would be why they still have a
large userbase. I am not kissing ass, I am simply saying i think you are
wrong, and as I have said before, I have no intrest in an O:Line, I believe
i can spend my time more productivly than dedicating hours everyday to
trying to keep 30k + users happy. Selfish - probably, but I am not about to
moan about the job they are doing. If you really think you have something to
offer to the administration, maybe you are going about gaining their trust
the wrong way, Constructive criticism (i think i got it that time) would
more than likely be welcomed, saying you are going to get them shut down
probably isn't.
On a side not, I notice that DALnet is still up after your call to your
precious Dept of homeland security.
I think this thread will also show, that there is around about no-one that
agree's with you, not even lance..
On the issue of your consiracy theory, you said it would cause outages at
sponsers other business', It did - why do you think so many de-linked. If
DALnet had *really* want to lose users, it could have just shutdown a load
of servers, or even just limit the ones that were linked. I think it was
plainly obvious to anyone, they were infact being attacked. For saying you
claim to be somewhat of a guru when it comes to technical matters, i can't
believe you honestly think they were not attacked.
You say its not impossible to trace the attackers, which i agree with, but
if it was so easy, do you think that the root dns server's would be getting
attacked, and STILL no-one being arrested? You can be sure that people are
trying very hard to trace the people, its just not that simple.
----
egor
Mattias Ahnberg
D> They have not banned all file servers lol. They are still allowing
D> stolen creditcard and porn pwd channels to mention a few. Dalnet
D> isnt cleaned up yet by a long shot...
Our intention was not to "clean out illegal file servers", our goal
was to try to move DALnet into more of a chat network again, and
thus we changed our AUP to reflect this. We're still removing all
channels that we spot that are primarily there for file trading.
This doesn't mean that we'll go after every single file server
there is on DALnet, since that isn't our purpose with all this.
/ahnberg.
GeckoX
Jomathan Jones wrote in message
<5pgpavc7u033gl4ge...@4ax.com>...
While I may not be the biggest fan of DALnet, I must point something out
here. Since DALnet continues to acknowledge that it is not required to
adhere to the laws of specific countries per se, we must take into account
that the network itself can create its own laws to govern itself.
However... I also know that underage porn, for example, tends to be illegal
in all of the Western world, specifically Canada and the United States.
Taking into account that DALnet is comprised of mostly American and European
servers, I have always been confused about the regulation of laws regarding
this type of porn on its servers. Please keep in mind that I am not
referring to what may or may not be taboo. Rather, I am speaking of
legislative laws that have been passed in good faith by the governments of
the countries where (most) DALnet servers originate. I'm not bringing this
up as a form of rebuttal. I am instead asking for any DALnet staff that are
reading this thread to reply and inform me of this seemingly hypocritical
stance on the DALnet network.
Now... here comes the real argument:
I am aware that DALnet has neither the resources or (apparently) the will
power to make a conscious effort to close channels containing child porn,
stolen credit cards, and other unlawful material. I would just like to point
out that had DALnet been an international organization offline that had
offices in several countries, the exchange of such unlawful material would
result in the offices being closed down and/or their owners charged with
possession of such illegal material. I believe that the reason DALnet has
decided to turn the other way and consequently ignore such illegal
activities is based on the simple fact that there are no real laws
pertaining to IRC anywhere in the world. As of now, it is protected under
"common carrier" status.
Perhaps this is why the DALnet staff are not hammering out a solid network
policy pertaining to illegal activity? Perhaps the status quo is more
important than maintaining the integrity of a network? I don't particularly
care to hear an explanation from the DALnet staff on the reasons why child
porn, hate channels, and credit card exchange are not cracked down upon. I
also realize that what happens between two users is out of the opers' hands
and that independent file sharing is not something that can be controlled.
However... when a channel's name is #!!!!preteenwhores or #!!!!babysex and
the DAL staff say they're "acceptable" channels, the only thing I can do is
laugh. Another example: #gaydads4sons - a very well known channel in which
older men (30+) meet up with younger, underaged, and sometimes preteen
males. I'm not even condemning it because it's homosexual. I'm condemning it
because it's blatant pedophilia. The channel registry information and maybe
even the topic of the channel don't mention that fact, but if you spent 3
seconds in the channel you would know about the depravity that goes on in
there.
DALnet should be shut down because of its ass backwards attitudes, and
hypocritical policies. It shut down file sharing channels yet illegal smut
is allowed to remain. Its staff should be ashamed. If they wanted to get rid
of massive file sharing, they would have banned fservs and file-sharing
bots. Instead, they alienated good users by closing down "file sharing
channels" while not even addressing the 15+ fservs running in those
channels. Are the DALnet staff too naive to know that those people will only
setup shop in another DALnet channel?
GeckoX
Emma
"GeckoX" <gec...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:lYmpa.135675$Vzu....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> laugh. Another example: #gaydads4sons - a very well known channel in which
> older men (30+) meet up with younger, underaged, and sometimes preteen
> males. I'm not even condemning it because it's homosexual. I'm condemning
it
> because it's blatant pedophilia. The channel registry information and
maybe
> even the topic of the channel don't mention that fact, but if you spent 3
> seconds in the channel you would know about the depravity that goes on in
> there.
Just a few questions about that:
1. How does a preteen child get on IRC to be able to "meet" these guys?
Personally, I don't consider myself responsible for what other people's kids
do online, that's the responsibility of the parents and it's about time
people quit this nannying attitude where everyone is to blame for their kids
getting into trouble but themselves. Preteen kids shouldn't be on the
Internet unsupervised. Period.
2. You talk about 'younger, underaged' guys - underaged to whom? The age
of consent is different across the countries, so which particular one would
you wish to pick and how would you enforce it? (Given that you can't exactly
sit in a channel asking for ID cards). Would you deny gay men who are just
under legal age exploring their sexuality in chat? Even AOL has hosted gay
youth chat rooms after all.
> DALnet should be shut down because of its ass backwards attitudes, and
> hypocritical policies. It shut down file sharing channels yet illegal smut
> is allowed to remain. Its staff should be ashamed. If they wanted to get
rid
Actually, DALnet said that it will not allow channels whose sole purpose is
file trading - that's ANY kind of files, MP3, warez, porn, chocolate cookie
recipes etc. It can easily determine if a channel is set up solely to trade
files just by going into it and watching out for fileservers. However what
DALnet can't do is determine whether a file is paedophilia without actually
downloading and viewing itself (and, if the child is older, even that's
dubious when taking into account varying age of consent around the world).
Of course, it's illegal to download and look at paedophilia - I'm quite sure
you wouldn't wish to expose DALnet staff to legal action would you? In a
world where people are arrested and charged for downloading files in the
name of research, I certainly wouldn't want to risk going into such channels
and downloading files to see what they were. Anyway, have you actually done
a /list lately? The last time I did one (a couple of weeks ago), *many*
such channels had gone.
Of course one could go for the argument that if a channel is called
something unsavoury then it simply shouldn't be allowed - but who decides
what is unsavoury? If I had my way I'd get rid of all channels with hax0r
speak names as I can't stand the deliberate use of bad English - want to go
by my views on what channel names are allowed? If we decide what channel
names are and are not allowed (regardless of their content), who enforces
it? Sure, if you scrambled every single one of the 100 or so Opers for a
few days you could close them all down - but then what? DALnet comes with
the ability to register a channel of any name instantly - just how long do
you think it will be before some of those channels reopen under a different
name? 10 minutes? a few hours? a day? Does that then mean that all Opers
should spend *all* their online time making sure that nobody opens a channel
with an unsavoury name? Quite frankly, I wouldn't be one of the ones doing
it - I'd be bored to death and I have other tasks to do when I'm online.
> of massive file sharing, they would have banned fservs and file-sharing
> bots. Instead, they alienated good users by closing down "file sharing
> channels" while not even addressing the 15+ fservs running in those
> channels. Are the DALnet staff too naive to know that those people will
only
> setup shop in another DALnet channel?
Well here you go - you ask if DALnet staff are too naive to know that these
people will reopen channels. Turn that on its head - are *you* too naive to
know that your #gaydads4sons can reopen in a matter of minutes? So why is
closing file trading channels (which, in case I have to spell it out,
*includes* porn trading), a waste of Opers' time but closing channels whose
names you don't like a great use of time? Think about it ;-)
Emma
--
[DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in my posting are NOT on behalf of DALnet, nor
shared by DALnet]
Contention
>However... I also know that underage porn, for example, tends to be illegal
>in all of the Western world, specifically Canada and the United States.
>Taking into account that DALnet is comprised of mostly American and European
>servers, I have always been confused about the regulation of laws regarding
>this type of porn on its servers.
You're edging pretty close to libel here, though I suspect the
problem is the way you're thinking about the situation, not deliberate
intent. :P There is no porn on Dalnet servers, and porn does not pass
through the servers; nor is it the purpose of the network to facilitate
the transmission of pornography of any type, and the "no filesharing"
rule only emphasises that. (To clarify: all file transfers take place
between clients, via a protocol of which the IRC server is ignorant, and
the file data never passes through Dalnet at all.)
Further, as far as I am aware it is not illegal to chat about any
topic, even somewhat disgusting ones like paedophilia. It certainly
shouldn't be. What *may* happen is that immoral types meet on Dalnet and
plan criminal activity. The problem is that Dalnet has no way to track
this. In the case of transmission of child pornography, it is actually
illegal for Dalnet operators to find out! If they download those
pictures, they commit a criminal act; if they do not, they have no real
evidence of exactly what is going on.
Dalnet can perhaps be blamed for not doing more to keep its channel
list "clean", and for not shutting down channels which are blatantly
there for illegal purposes, but that will always rely on personal
judgement.
Contention.
--
Andrew J. Shore, Contention-among-dragons.
"Win. If you can't win, change the rules. If you can't change the rules,
cheat. If you can't cheat, don't play. If all else fails and you have to
play - play to lose."
U
"GeckoX" <gec...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:lYmpa.135675$Vzu....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
I just find it funny because you don't like Dalnet or how its ran, it should
be shut down.
Does that mean if I don't like your opinions, your internet provider should
terminate your account? Doesn't sound too fair to me, but thats what you
want to happen to Dal-perhaps you should email Dal's isps and request it and
see what they say? And perhaps Dal's staff should email your isp and
request it and see what they say?
I agree that Dal or other networks aren't exactly my cup of tea, and thats
fine, thats why I started my own network. But it doesn't mean that just
because my opinion is that I don't like to use them, that they should be
shutdown. It doesn't mean my network is better than Dal or any other, it
just means I'm running it the way I think it should be, doesn't mean its
right, doesn't mean its wrong, just another slant on IRC network operation.
People who like it use it, people who don't, use others. Its purely an
opinion thing. I use the networks I agree with, and don't use the ones I
don't agree with. Simple. Dalnet can run all it wants, doesn't mean I'm
forced to use it. There are 450 some odd networks on netsplit.de because of
this, 450 different opinions of how a network should be run, what kind of
services (if any) it should have. Its not like Dalnet is the only
choice.......and if those 450 don't meet your standards, create your own,
and there will be 451 choices at that point.
If the activity you see on Dalnet is truely illegal under the law, and you
can prove it is, report it to a law enforcement authority, if they see
enough evidence they can do what you wish. I would think if it was, some
law enforcement authority would have done it by now, there are plenty of law
enforcement agencies that come onto IRC networks and monitor activity, if
Dalnets activity was truely illegal action would have been taken by now, I'm
sure. Crowing about it on here, however, won't do much, and since it is
thier network, they can set whatever rules they wish, and also choose how to
enforce the rules they set-its that simple. If that means setting a rule
and enforcing it on some and not on others......it is their network, they
can do what they wish. The choice of how stuff is enforced lies directly on
the enforcers. If they want to enforce A but not B, that is their right.
If they want to enforce A, but not enforce A on a friend, they could do that
also. There is no "uniform code" on IRC like in real life that requires the
law to be enforced equally. Join any channel on IRC and get kickbanned from
it also-the same rights occur, they own the channel, they can ban you if
they want, for any reason, including the fact they just felt like
kickbanning the next person that walked in. You didn't do a thing, but you
can't do a thing about it either, its purely the choice of the channel that
banned you to remove it.
If you don't like the way Dalnet is operated, you should make your choice by
using a network that meets your standards and opinions, and if one doesn't
exist, create your own that does. If many people agree with your opinions,
they should depart also. If Dalnets operation and rules are truely as bad
as you describe, the usercount should plummet to the point that the sponsors
no longer see a need to support Dal servers, and the network will fold. But
as long as people see Dalnet as a viable IRC network and use it, no matter
what you think or how its ran-its not going anywhere, just like any other
network. Its just like in real life-if you don't like a particular store,
you don't patronise it. If the store is truely that bad, and nobody
patronises it, it will lose money and ultimately go out of business. But as
long as the store gets customers (even without you) that are statisfied with
the service and product they are getting, the store will continue to profit
and exist. Dalnets product is providing a IRC chat network environment, as
long as people join in and use the product and like the product they are
getting, they will continue connecting (walking in the store) and getting
product. And as long as the usercount numbers stay up, the sponsors of
servers will see it as a viable entity to continue to donate bandwith to,
and will continue to do so until the product stops selling and the store
closes, at which point they will move thier investment (in this case
bandwith) to the new store down the street that is now doing well (another
IRC network). Or, they may decide to refocus and not invest in any more
stores (no longer host any IRC servers).
Until this happens though, Dalnet and many other networks will continue to
prosper. As long as the people running servers on them don't mind the
investment of money, and people don't mind how they are ran (or don't have a
problem with how they are ran, and what rules exist for use), they will get
users. If the management reaches a point that people no longer like the
service, they will switch. Only then will the IRC network die, unless the
management itself decides to hang up the hat and retire, in which case the
network will die because the people running it chose to. But until the
management decides to shut it down, or the clientele moves on to where its
no longer affordable to run the network, the network won't go anywhere.
Just my opinion.
--
U
irc.foreverchat.net Founder
Tony Miller
Emma <cu...@clothes.dal.net> wrote:
>
> "GeckoX" <gec...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:lYmpa.135675$Vzu....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> laugh. Another example: #gaydads4sons - a very well known channel in which
>> older men (30+) meet up with younger, underaged, and sometimes preteen
>> males. I'm not even condemning it because it's homosexual. I'm condemning
> it
>> because it's blatant pedophilia. The channel registry information and
> maybe
>> even the topic of the channel don't mention that fact, but if you spent 3
>> seconds in the channel you would know about the depravity that goes on in
>> there.
[Piggybacking] I have to ask GeckoX how he knows what the content of
#gaydads4sons is? I would have thought it was a place for homosexual men
to discuss parenting.
Another issue is that I would much prefer pedophiles to be thrown in jail
than forced underground. Channels like #preteensex are great
investigating grounds for law enforcement. The closing of these channels
could have a detrimental effect on an investigation and as a matter of
fact, screw it up. A pedophile would go free to hurt another child. I
can't imagine GeckoX wanting that to happen.
>> of massive file sharing, they would have banned fservs and file-sharing
>> bots. Instead, they alienated good users by closing down "file sharing
>> channels" while not even addressing the 15+ fservs running in those
>> channels. Are the DALnet staff too naive to know that those people will
> only
>> setup shop in another DALnet channel?
>
> Well here you go - you ask if DALnet staff are too naive to know that these
> people will reopen channels. Turn that on its head - are *you* too naive to
> know that your #gaydads4sons can reopen in a matter of minutes? So why is
> closing file trading channels (which, in case I have to spell it out,
> *includes* porn trading), a waste of Opers' time but closing channels whose
> names you don't like a great use of time? Think about it ;-)
He just has an agenda. He doesn't care about pedophiles, he wants to use
them as leverage to try and get file sharing reinstated.
> Emma
-Tony
--
Reliable, "eggable" Unix shell accounts. http://www.jtan.com/proshell/
cl00bie @ IRC - /server cookie.sorcery.net 9000, http://www.sorcery.net
We welcome WebTV'ers - http://www.sorcery.net/help/index.html#WebTV
Tony Miller
U <fou...@foreverchat.net> wrote:
<Snip>
> enforce the rules they set-its that simple. If that means setting a rule
> and enforcing it on some and not on others......it is their network, they
> can do what they wish. The choice of how stuff is enforced lies directly on
> the enforcers. If they want to enforce A but not B, that is their right.
You were doing good up until this point... Should DALnet make a rule that
certain content is not allowed, they are required to make sure it doesn't
exist on their network. As soon as they make such a rule, they stop being
a "phone company" and start becoming "a newspaper". They can be sued for
libelous messages, they can be sued if they say porn isn't allowed and
someone's 10 year old son "trips over" porn.
By exercising editorial control over their medium, they become bound by
the rules of publishers.
U
"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbadgr...@callisto.jtan.com...
Actually I was referring more to how they enforce....They can kick, ban and
forbid channels, and/or akill. Gecko seemed to think if people are banned
from one channel they will move to another. My point was its the enforcers
choice how to enforce, and either allow the problem to reperpetuate itself,
or to eliminate it altogether (akill).
Since also dal is only enforcing "file trade channels" its kinda vague
anyway and enforcement could go a few ways. He seems to think its unfair
channel a gets banned but not b. Hes pissed at non-uniform enforcement. I
don't see how there could be, the rule is written vaugely, probably on
purpose, to prevent what you stated-if they said ALL file trading channels,
they would step into the other realm, so instead, they said "the primary
purpose is file trading". Thats subject to the interpretation of the person
enforcing the rule, to an extent.
--
U
irc.foreverchat.net Founder
GeckoX
Emma wrote in message ...
>Just a few questions about that:
>
>1. How does a preteen child get on IRC to be able to "meet" these guys?
>Personally, I don't consider myself responsible for what other people's
kids
>do online, that's the responsibility of the parents and it's about time
>people quit this nannying attitude where everyone is to blame for their
kids
>getting into trouble but themselves. Preteen kids shouldn't be on the
>Internet unsupervised. Period.
You are still providing them with the forum to conduct those activities. You
haven't even clarified if you approve of such activities or not... you are
simply looking for reasons to not take responsibility. I agree that the
majority of the blame should be placed on the parents who don't supervise
their children, but two wrongs don't make a right. Providing them with the
place to meet pedophiles and then saying it's their fault for going into
such places is simply denial. They are using DALnet servers.
>2. You talk about 'younger, underaged' guys - underaged to whom? The
age
>of consent is different across the countries, so which particular one would
>you wish to pick and how would you enforce it? (Given that you can't
exactly
>sit in a channel asking for ID cards). Would you deny gay men who are just
>under legal age exploring their sexuality in chat? Even AOL has hosted gay
>youth chat rooms after all.
Gay exploration rooms and rooms containing nothing but pedophilia are two
distinctive varieties. The age of consent varies from country to country
(from 16 to 25, if I recall), yes, but DALnet has the ability to lay down
its "own law" as many opers have said to me (some on this newsgroup) in the
past. The admins should be able to decide such things. Instead, they won't
take responsibility. The content is still on YOUR servers, most of which are
American and European; thus the age of consent could be hammered out
uniformly.
I expect to be attacked on this one, but...
DDoS attacks are not illegal in all countries, so why is DALnet trying to
lay down the law on the attackers? It's only because DALnet and its
constituent providers are at risk. It doesn't matter what might be happening
to a 14 year old as a result of communication through your servers. I admit
that the admins can't be held liable for all content running through their
servers, but channels that are blatantly marked for pedophilia should be
targetted and closed. It hasn't even been confirmed that the DDoS attackers
in question are American, so why pursue American law? It's convenient to use
such a legal system when it suits your needs, but simultaneously it's
alright to ignore other issues that don't "concern you." Do you see my
point?
>Actually, DALnet said that it will not allow channels whose sole purpose is
>file trading - that's ANY kind of files, MP3, warez, porn, chocolate cookie
>recipes etc. It can easily determine if a channel is set up solely to
trade
>files just by going into it and watching out for fileservers. However what
>DALnet can't do is determine whether a file is paedophilia without actually
>downloading and viewing itself (and, if the child is older, even that's
>dubious when taking into account varying age of consent around the world).
>Of course, it's illegal to download and look at paedophilia - I'm quite
sure
>you wouldn't wish to expose DALnet staff to legal action would you? In a
>world where people are arrested and charged for downloading files in the
>name of research, I certainly wouldn't want to risk going into such
channels
>and downloading files to see what they were. Anyway, have you actually
done
>a /list lately? The last time I did one (a couple of weeks ago), *many*
>such channels had gone.
I can speak about the rest of the world, but I know that in North America,
unrelated porn sites are illegal and can be shut down if reported, their
owners fined/jailed, and the company name disbanded. Going into a channel
and fabricating your age to the ops is not age verification. You are
correct - there is no way to tell. Thus, the channels should not be allowed
to exist.
>Of course one could go for the argument that if a channel is called
>something unsavoury then it simply shouldn't be allowed - but who decides
>what is unsavoury?
I'm not speaking of personal opinion here. I am speaking about what is law.
A channel whose sole purpose (and I'm aware I'm jumping over the board here)
is to exchange stolen credit card information, a fraud anywhere in the
Western world, should be terminated. It doesn't matter if you don't see them
doing it in the open channel. If the channel has blatantly been established
to harbour such exchanges, then it should be shut down. Then DALnet isn't
liable for any subsequent crimes that arise.
>If I had my way I'd get rid of all channels with hax0r
>speak names as I can't stand the deliberate use of bad English - want to go
>by my views on what channel names are allowed? If we decide what channel
>names are and are not allowed (regardless of their content), who enforces
>it? Sure, if you scrambled every single one of the 100 or so Opers for a
>few days you could close them all down - but then what? DALnet comes with
>the ability to register a channel of any name instantly - just how long do
>you think it will be before some of those channels reopen under a different
>name? 10 minutes? a few hours? a day? Does that then mean that all Opers
>should spend *all* their online time making sure that nobody opens a
channel
>with an unsavoury name? Quite frankly, I wouldn't be one of the ones doing
>it - I'd be bored to death and I have other tasks to do when I'm online.
It took me a minute to retrieve DAL's complete channel listing, and 10
seconds to view the most offensive channels (the worst usually appear at the
top). However DALnet would deal with it is its own business, but I think it
would be sufficient for Admins to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Obviously there can't be total objectivity when approaching "offensive"
channels, which is why DALnet would have to hammer out an acceptable channel
policy. I have seen networks do it before with success.
>Well here you go - you ask if DALnet staff are too naive to know that these
>people will reopen channels. Turn that on its head - are *you* too naive
to
>know that your #gaydads4sons can reopen in a matter of minutes? So why is
>closing file trading channels (which, in case I have to spell it out,
>*includes* porn trading), a waste of Opers' time but closing channels whose
>names you don't like a great use of time? Think about it ;-)
>
>Emma
At least you'd be making the effort, and thus providing a show of good
faith. If DALnet is actively involved in the shutting down of offensive
channels like it is with the file sharing channels, then no one would be
able to complain otherwise. Popular channels are the ones that have been
around for years. Shutting them down disbands users that take time to
reassmble. By that time the new channel would be discovered and shut down in
kind. It would work in theory, anyway.
I realize most of the stuff I say is hypothetical most of the time, but
there's still value to be extracted from it.
GeckoX
P.S. I think it was U that raised the question of why I am only addressing
"offensive" channels on DALnet and not other networks. My response: This
newsgroup is called alt.irc.dalnet.
U
My response to your PS:
When you're done cleaning up Dalnet, will you go to those other networks and
do the same, or do you only care about Dalnets supposed harboring of such
persons?
--
U
irc.foreverchat.net Founder
Rick
> Gay exploration rooms and rooms containing nothing but pedophilia are two
> distinctive varieties. The age of consent varies from country to country
> (from 16 to 25, if I recall), yes, but DALnet has the ability to lay down
> its "own law" as many opers have said to me (some on this newsgroup) in the
> past. The admins should be able to decide such things. Instead, they won't
> take responsibility. The content is still on YOUR servers, most of which are
> American and European; thus the age of consent could be hammered out
> uniformly.
And how does one know how old a particular user is? Ask
them? LOL!
>
> I expect to be attacked on this one, but...
> DDoS attacks are not illegal in all countries, so why is DALnet trying to
> lay down the law on the attackers? It's only because DALnet and its
> constituent providers are at risk. It doesn't matter what might be happening
> to a 14 year old as a result of communication through your servers. I admit
> that the admins can't be held liable for all content running through their
> servers, but channels that are blatantly marked for pedophilia should be
> targetted and closed. It hasn't even been confirmed that the DDoS attackers
> in question are American, so why pursue American law? It's convenient to use
> such a legal system when it suits your needs, but simultaneously it's
> alright to ignore other issues that don't "concern you." Do you see my
> point?
>
You don't have a "point", you have a "rant". There's a
difference.
> I can speak about the rest of the world, but I know that in North America,
> unrelated porn sites are illegal
Are they? Don't think so....
>>Of course one could go for the argument that if a channel is called
>>something unsavoury then it simply shouldn't be allowed - but who decides
>>what is unsavoury?
>
>
> I'm not speaking of personal opinion here. I am speaking about what is law.
> A channel whose sole purpose (and I'm aware I'm jumping over the board here)
> is to exchange stolen credit card information, a fraud anywhere in the
> Western world, should be terminated.
Is it illegal to _talk about_ stolen credit cards? Don't
think so.
> It doesn't matter if you don't see them
> doing it in the open channel. If the channel has blatantly been established
> to harbour such exchanges, then it should be shut down. Then DALnet isn't
> liable for any subsequent crimes that arise.
>
And how d you know unless you make such an exchange?
>
> It took me a minute to retrieve DAL's complete channel listing, and 10
> seconds to view the most offensive channels (the worst usually appear at the
> top).
I guess that depends how you sort them, doesn't it?
> However DALnet would deal with it is its own business,
Then leave it to DALnet and butt out.
> At least you'd be making the effort, and thus providing a show of good
> faith. If DALnet is actively involved in the shutting down of offensive
> channels like it is with the file sharing channels, then no one would be
> able to complain otherwise.
Sure they would. Everyone who thought _this_ channel or
_that_ channel was offensive would complain that it wasn't
shut down. Others would complain that there was nothing
wrong with the channels that _were_ shut down, etc etc.
egor
>
>
> It hasn't even been confirmed that the DDoS attackers
> in question are American, so why pursue American law? It's convenient to
use
> such a legal system when it suits your needs, but simultaneously it's
> alright to ignore other issues that don't "concern you." Do you see my
> point?
>
while i disagree with a lot of your post, there is a good point there.
-----
egor
Contention
>> It hasn't even been confirmed that the DDoS attackers
>> in question are American, so why pursue American law? It's convenient to
>use
>> such a legal system when it suits your needs, but simultaneously it's
>> alright to ignore other issues that don't "concern you." Do you see my
>> point?
>
>while i disagree with a lot of your post, there is a good point there.
Not really. The network is not ignoring any point of American law;
the law simply doesn't say that they have to do anything, and the costs
of investigating are perhaps too high for a group of volunteers.
The fact is, both the moral and legal situations are rather vague.
You can easily argue that a major communications service like Dalnet has
a moral obligation to protect free speech from those who wish to
restrict it. I would personally err on the side of restriction, but I
don't know that I would be right to do so.
GeckoX
U wrote in message ...
I don't know, since we're not talking about other networks. If you really
want to place the entire realm of IRC under scrutiny, then we can do that.
GeckoX
Rick
The question is not whether _he_ does, but whether _you_ do.
That determines if your rant is _really_ related to "kiddie
porn", etc - or, in fact, to DALnet.
egor
"Contention" <Conte...@soaring.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3zqRbrDi...@soaring.demon.co.uk...
The problem with restricting anything is people will always have different
opinions of how far to restrict it..
which what makes certain new laws rather worrying, but then thats a
completely different debate.
-----
egor
U
Well you seem pretty apt to blame dalnet for all of this stuff, when dalnet
is probably only a sliver of the problem. There are plenty of other
networks with the same crap on them. So are you just against them residing
on dalnet, or are you just pissed that dalnet has them?
--
U
irc.foreverchat.net Founder
Tony Miller
Enforcement is also a tool. You ban file sharing channels. If one comes
in that doesn't cause trouble you have the option to leave it alone. If
one comes in that's troublesome, you have the option to crush it without
discussion and argument.
Nobody ever said the enforcement of a rule had to be fair. But if you set
up a file sharing channel on DALnet expecting not to be enfirced, you
deserve what you get.
Tony Miller
GeckoX <gec...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Emma wrote in message ...
>>Just a few questions about that:
>>
>>1. How does a preteen child get on IRC to be able to "meet" these guys?
>>Personally, I don't consider myself responsible for what other people's
> kids
>>do online, that's the responsibility of the parents and it's about time
>>people quit this nannying attitude where everyone is to blame for their
> kids
>>getting into trouble but themselves. Preteen kids shouldn't be on the
>>Internet unsupervised. Period.
>
> You are still providing them with the forum to conduct those activities. You
> haven't even clarified if you approve of such activities or not... you are
> simply looking for reasons to not take responsibility. I agree that the
> majority of the blame should be placed on the parents who don't supervise
> their children, but two wrongs don't make a right. Providing them with the
> place to meet pedophiles and then saying it's their fault for going into
> such places is simply denial. They are using DALnet servers.
Of course they are. This makes a very obvious place for pedophiles to
congregate that law enforcement can investigate.
I say DALnet is providing a community service.
>>2. You talk about 'younger, underaged' guys - underaged to whom? The
> age
>>of consent is different across the countries, so which particular one would
>>you wish to pick and how would you enforce it? (Given that you can't
> exactly
>>sit in a channel asking for ID cards). Would you deny gay men who are just
>>under legal age exploring their sexuality in chat? Even AOL has hosted gay
>>youth chat rooms after all.
>
> Gay exploration rooms and rooms containing nothing but pedophilia are two
> distinctive varieties. The age of consent varies from country to country
> (from 16 to 25, if I recall), yes, but DALnet has the ability to lay down
> its "own law" as many opers have said to me (some on this newsgroup) in the
> past. The admins should be able to decide such things. Instead, they won't
> take responsibility. The content is still on YOUR servers, most of which are
> American and European; thus the age of consent could be hammered out
> uniformly.
How old are you? How can I verify your age while you're chatting? If you
can tell me an easy and non-intrusive way to do this, I'm sure all of us
IRC networks would be interested to know it.
> I expect to be attacked on this one, but...
> DDoS attacks are not illegal in all countries, so why is DALnet trying to
> lay down the law on the attackers? It's only because DALnet and its
Because they are being damaged, you dumbass. Why doesn't DALnet allow
flooders?
> constituent providers are at risk. It doesn't matter what might be happening
> to a 14 year old as a result of communication through your servers. I admit
> that the admins can't be held liable for all content running through their
> servers, but channels that are blatantly marked for pedophilia should be
> targetted and closed. It hasn't even been confirmed that the DDoS attackers
> in question are American, so why pursue American law? It's convenient to use
> such a legal system when it suits your needs, but simultaneously it's
> alright to ignore other issues that don't "concern you." Do you see my
> point?
Why? So the pedophiles can go underground? Or worse yet, stalk channels
like #kids or #romperroom? I prefer to have them all in #preteensex where
they can be watched.
>>Actually, DALnet said that it will not allow channels whose sole purpose is
>>file trading - that's ANY kind of files, MP3, warez, porn, chocolate cookie
>>recipes etc. It can easily determine if a channel is set up solely to
> trade
>>files just by going into it and watching out for fileservers. However what
>>DALnet can't do is determine whether a file is paedophilia without actually
>>downloading and viewing itself (and, if the child is older, even that's
>>dubious when taking into account varying age of consent around the world).
>>Of course, it's illegal to download and look at paedophilia - I'm quite
> sure
>>you wouldn't wish to expose DALnet staff to legal action would you? In a
>>world where people are arrested and charged for downloading files in the
>>name of research, I certainly wouldn't want to risk going into such
> channels
>>and downloading files to see what they were. Anyway, have you actually
> done
>>a /list lately? The last time I did one (a couple of weeks ago), *many*
>>such channels had gone.
>
> I can speak about the rest of the world, but I know that in North America,
> unrelated porn sites are illegal and can be shut down if reported, their
> owners fined/jailed, and the company name disbanded. Going into a channel
> and fabricating your age to the ops is not age verification. You are
> correct - there is no way to tell. Thus, the channels should not be allowed
> to exist.
Good, report it to law enforcement. DALnet is an IRC network.
>>Of course one could go for the argument that if a channel is called
>>something unsavoury then it simply shouldn't be allowed - but who decides
>>what is unsavoury?
>
> I'm not speaking of personal opinion here. I am speaking about what is law.
Then report it to law enforcement.
> A channel whose sole purpose (and I'm aware I'm jumping over the board here)
> is to exchange stolen credit card information, a fraud anywhere in the
> Western world, should be terminated. It doesn't matter if you don't see them
> doing it in the open channel. If the channel has blatantly been established
> to harbour such exchanges, then it should be shut down. Then DALnet isn't
> liable for any subsequent crimes that arise.
Then report it to law enforcement.
>>If I had my way I'd get rid of all channels with hax0r
>>speak names as I can't stand the deliberate use of bad English - want to go
>>by my views on what channel names are allowed? If we decide what channel
>>names are and are not allowed (regardless of their content), who enforces
>>it? Sure, if you scrambled every single one of the 100 or so Opers for a
>>few days you could close them all down - but then what? DALnet comes with
>>the ability to register a channel of any name instantly - just how long do
>>you think it will be before some of those channels reopen under a different
>>name? 10 minutes? a few hours? a day? Does that then mean that all Opers
>>should spend *all* their online time making sure that nobody opens a
> channel
>>with an unsavoury name? Quite frankly, I wouldn't be one of the ones doing
>>it - I'd be bored to death and I have other tasks to do when I'm online.
>
> It took me a minute to retrieve DAL's complete channel listing, and 10
> seconds to view the most offensive channels (the worst usually appear at the
> top). However DALnet would deal with it is its own business, but I think it
> would be sufficient for Admins to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
> Obviously there can't be total objectivity when approaching "offensive"
> channels, which is why DALnet would have to hammer out an acceptable channel
> policy. I have seen networks do it before with success.
Why should they want to? On my network we have talked about different
ways of "sanitizing" the /LIST. One way we discussed is a special channel
mode +a and a corresponding usermode +a. If a channel is +a (adult) it
cannot be seen in the list by someone who is -a usermode (default). There
would also be the ability to force mlock the channel +a.
Most adult channels I've seen don't want kids in them.
So if a kid goes +a usermode, it's a parenting issue, not an IRC issue.
>>Well here you go - you ask if DALnet staff are too naive to know that these
>>people will reopen channels. Turn that on its head - are *you* too naive
> to
>>know that your #gaydads4sons can reopen in a matter of minutes? So why is
>>closing file trading channels (which, in case I have to spell it out,
>>*includes* porn trading), a waste of Opers' time but closing channels whose
>>names you don't like a great use of time? Think about it ;-)
>>
>>Emma
>
> At least you'd be making the effort, and thus providing a show of good
> faith. If DALnet is actively involved in the shutting down of offensive
> channels like it is with the file sharing channels, then no one would be
> able to complain otherwise. Popular channels are the ones that have been
> around for years. Shutting them down disbands users that take time to
> reassmble. By that time the new channel would be discovered and shut down in
> kind. It would work in theory, anyway.
The effort would be counter productive to solving the problem at hand, and
possibly dangerous to children.
> I realize most of the stuff I say is hypothetical most of the time, but
> there's still value to be extracted from it.
Not really. You are WAY off base on what the REAL issues are here.
> GeckoX
>
> P.S. I think it was U that raised the question of why I am only addressing
> "offensive" channels on DALnet and not other networks. My response: This
> newsgroup is called alt.irc.dalnet.
-Tony
GeckoX
>is probably only a sliver of the problem. There are plenty of other
>networks with the same crap on them. So are you just against them residing
>on dalnet, or are you just pissed that dalnet has them?
>
>
>--
>U
>irc.foreverchat.net Founder
Sorry for the late reply, I don't come here that often; time restrictions.
I think you are going off on an unnecessary tangent here U.
A while back I was involved in a thread on this group related to
vegetarianism and I was told by a couple of people that it's irrelevant to
the group. Now that I'm actually talking about DALnet (reminiscent of the
name of the NG), people are asking me why I'm not talking about the issues
of other IRC networks? I'm sorry, but please, get a clue.
I was targetting DALnet in my responses because that is what this NG is
about, no? So why are you and other people tediously picking out
non-existent trivialities and constructing them into irrelevant arguments?
The simple fact is: I'm talking DALnet because this is alt.irc.dalnet; the
topic of the thread is called "DALnet Has Caved." It's not speaking to the
generalization of all IRC networks, is it? Unless, of course, I am not
extrapolating to your genius level by assuming it is.
Now I know why I mostly read the content here and rarely ever reply.
Krimady.
GeckoX
U
I was just asking simply because you seemed to portray dalnet as the worst
of all IRC servers because of its content-content not unique to it.
--
U
irc.foreverchat.net Founder