FAQ-Rebuttal: "Rogue Sites" on the Internet(1/2)
Kevin Podsiadlik
A rebuttal to "FAQ: "Rogue Sites" on the Internet?" by Kevin J. Podsiadlik
<kjpo...@cyberramp.net>
Last updated May 10, 1997
Original FAQ by Ricardo H. Gonzales <ric...@paranoia.com>
Note: Mr. Gonzales' FAQ is reproduced here in its entirety, as posted to
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, and is marked by the lines beginning with ">".
Direct responses to the questions posed, as answered by Peter Da Silva
<pe...@nmti.com>, are on lines beginning with "*". Additional commentary by
this author is on unmarked lines.
E-mail with corrections, additions, and updates, is more than welcome.
Indeed, it is the very fact that Mr. Gonzales does not accept such
corrections (or alternate views) himself, that led to the creation of
this "counterpoint" document.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>FAQ: "Rogue Sites" on the Internet?
>Last updated: January 12, 1997
>Author: ric...@paranoia.com (Ricardo H. Gonzales)
>NOTICE: This text may not be reproduced in any form for profit without the
>permission of the author. It may be reproduced in any form provided that no
>money is being charged.
>The question of so-called "rogue sites" on the Internet has recently become
>a popular topic of discussion. This FAQ was created in order to cover
>frequently asked questions about the "rogue site" label and to discuss
>related issues of interest.
For convenience, here are the questions which this FAQ attempts to answer:
1. What is a "rogue site"?
2. I am a system administrator. Why is my site being called a "rogue site"?
3. What is the UDP?
4. Who are these people who control "Netiquette" and the Internet?
5. Why are certain harmless behaviours deemed illegal by "Netiquette" standards?
6. How can I stop the cabal so that my users and I may speak freely?
7. As a user, how should I deal with users' behaviours at a "rogue site"?
8. How do we fix USENET?
>1. What is a "rogue site"?
>A "rogue site" is the title that in the past was assigned to Internet sites
>that were operated by individuals who were intent on harming the net. The
>sort of net-abuse they practiced included packet-sniffing, network floods,
>and account cracking. Recently, the title "rogue site" has come to mean any
>site in which an individual has an email account with which they can
>express opinions anonymously or state an unpopular opinion without the
>approval of certain people who would like to restrict these forms of
>expression.
*A rogue site is a site whose administrators are unable to prevent, condone,
*or even promote abusive behaviour on the net.
The "unable to" phrase, of course, only modifies "prevent", not "condone" or
"or even promote".
The last sentence in Mr. Gonzales' answer spells out that which I will
charitably call the "misconception" upon his entire FAQ is based. The fact
is, a very small but noisy group of people, some of whom are mentioned later
in this FAQ, continually make complaints about certain sites being wrongly
called "rogue".
They do this regardless of how obvious the evidence against their claim is;
in one recent incident, when a vandal cancelled every post in the
news.admin.net-abuse.* hierarchy, these people started complaining that they
were "singled out" for "content-based" cancels, even though the people they
routinely accuse of this were equally victimized. When confronted with the
evidence they fall silent, waiting for the next opportunity to jump up and
yell censorship. Their hope, apparently, is that one day their targets will
finally slip up, leaving their credibility smashed and the administration of
Usenet open to a new leadership, preferably their own.
>Each of these behaviours and methods of dealing with them will be discussed
>below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. I am a system administrator. Why is my site being called a "rogue site"?
>What likely occured is that one of your users posted a message that someone
>else didn't agree with. What could have happened is that the reader may
>have been in such strong disagreement that he posted a message in one of
>the news.admin.* groups claiming that your site is a rogue site.
>It is also possible that a user on your system posted to several newsgroups
>with a message that was unpopular. Or maybe a user on your system sent
>unwanted email to people. If one person doesn't like the opinions or
>behaviour of your users, then you may be labeled a "rogue site" by this
>person and their friends.
*You have been unresponsive to requests that you prevent your site being
*used for abusive behaviour.
Mr. Gonzales makes the notion of a "rogue site" sound rather like a bad
joke. And it can be, if the label is given by a person with neither the
credibility nor the power to back it up.
However, there are sites that are quite seriously considered "rogue". Two
such sites are Cyberpromo.com and Nancynet.com. These sites consistently
make their response to complaints about abusive behavior, more of the same.
If your site is seriously labeled a "rogue site", you will be very much
aware as to why, and will have received detailed advice on what to do in
order to avoid this label, from system administrators of other sites. Ignore
this advice at your own risk.
As stated earlier, the posting of "unpopular" messages has nothing to do
with this designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. What is the UDP?
>UDP stands for the USENET Death Penalty which is handed out by an offended
>person and their friends when they don't like the user opinions or
>behaviours that come from your site. It is a tactic of revenge by use of
>censorship to try to cut you off from the Internet. It is an attempt to
>assert the values of a person and his friends over free expression.
*There are two UDPs. The original, now referred to as "passive UDP",
*involves aliasing out sites so that messages from them are not propogated.
*Later, a more active UDP involving sending out cancel messages for all
*messages from a given site was proposed. There is no evidence that either
*of these have actually been implemented, and these days it's more black
*humor (caused by the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do anything
*about rogue sites) than anything else.
And above all, it is not something just anyone can hand out. It requires (or
rather, would require) widespread consensus and cooperation in order to have
any effect. Mr. Gonzales' "offended person and their friends" could no more
hand this out than they could fire a ballistic missle at the offices of the
offending site.
See also the Net Abuse FAQ[2].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4. Who are these people who control "Netiquette" and the Internet?
>Netiquette is a term that some people use when they mean to say that there
>is a type of manners that you must adhere to when using the net. However,
>this concept has lots of problems in practice. There are a myriad of
>different ideas about how manners on the net should exist. Some people
>would like to keep things like a church where nothing confrontational or
>strong may be expressed. Others would like to speak freely and let others
>know about what they are thinking, even if it is unpleasant or not socially
>conforming. There are of course all ranges of personality types between
>this. Because there is not and single definition for the type of manners
>that all people should follow, there is no way to define netiquette, and it
>effectively does not exist. Those who claim it exists will cite a document
>that someone wrote, but that document only expresses the netiquette of the
>author and there will be millions of people on the Internet that disagree
>with that opinion.
Much the same holds true for real-world etiquette. Ergo, New York City.
*There are no people who control netiquette. There are certain kinds of
*behaviour that have proven more productive in the past, and these are
*referred to as being "good net etiquette" or "netiquette". Violating
*netiquette is likely to make people discount your opinion, since most
*people understand pretty well what's appropriate behaviour and what's not.
*Things that are considered "bad net etiquette" are excessive crossposting,
*excessive multiple posting, baiting readers with outrageous messages (also
*known as trolling), and actively promoting abusive behaviour.
In effect, Mr. Gonzales does not deny that this question is based on the
wrong idea that someone in fact does "control" netiquette. He goes so far as
to state it does not even exist. Others say it is the result of consensus
and the test of time, a long series of trial-and-error to determine what
behaviors on Usenet prove constructive and which destructive.
Netiquette is really a red herring, however. Having bad netiquette will get
you yelled at, will get you some nasty e-mail, and, in extreme cases, will
get you ignored en masse by the general newsreading public. In very few
cases has a person gotten so offensive that semi-official measures had to
be taken against him. One such example is Steve Winter.[12]
By the way, if you haven't yet read the document on netiquette referred to
above, you might want to do so now[3]. Then follow the suggestions or ignore
them as you please. It all depends on how much you value being liked and
respected on Usenet.
Note: the above is only one of many locations where this document is
available. To find others you can execute a simple search on Alta Vista[4].
Numerous other people support the concept of netiquette in their own way[5].
As you can see, it is not simply some isolated, obscure, pesudo-standard,
but a true set of cultural values that exist here on the Internet.
>When it comes to people trying to control the Internet, this is an easier
>problem to solve. Because of its distributive and democratically
>cooperative nature, no one really owns the Internet. But there are people
>who would like to think that they did and try to control people in various
>ways. Some controllers try to stop people who post messages containing
>certain ideologies, political thoughts, or that are even critical of the
>controllers. In some cases the controllers send forged messages to cancel
>that articles that offend them. Often they try to have other people's
>accounts removed. But there is a way to stop many of these offenses.
>Because many of these people usually have this power through their jobs, it
>is proper to have them fired for their abuse of their position. Going
>through email to an administrator at their machine is not likely to be seen
>by anyone but them. You will need to contact a person who is in power at
>that organization and that may take more work. A possible approach to
>finding this information is to post your grievance and a request for
>information on one of the news.admin.* groups where there are watchdogs who
>document the net-abuse of cabal members. For long time offenders there is a
>good deal of public information available about their employers and private
>life.
And you are perfectly within your rights to ask for said person's dismissal.
However, I promise you that you will be greatly disappointed.
These "cabal members" (an ironic term that has become one of Usenet's most
prevalent running jokes) hardly make a secret of their activities. See the
newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins for a daily chronicle of their
work. And, strange as this may sound, their employers actually approve of
their work!
Why, you could ask? Well, I could tell you, but I'd rather just point you to
the canonical web site[6] which explains the motivations of the people
involved. Read and be enlightened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>5. Why are certain harmless behaviours deemed illegal by "Netiquette"
>standards?
For those of you wondering what netiquette has to do with legality, I don't
know either!
>If you understand the fictional "Netiquette" as nothing more than a system
>of morality that represents a small number of clamorous people, you can
>understand how they tried to make it seem real. They were effective in
>coming up with rules and propagating them, but their netiquette system has
>no further basis than this. Adding to the comedy and tragedy of this system
>is the fact that additional arbitrary rules have been invented to rule
>alongside it. An example of this is the "Breidbart Index (BI)" which is a
>made-up formula to determine whether or not a person has posted "too many"
>messages in a 45-day span. If a person has exceeded the BI level, people
>who want to control the Internet will step in and begin to forge messages
>as the sender to cancel the posts that their baseless formula indicates are
>in excess. The disastrous thing about this system is that the formula means
>nothing because it was simply made up by a person so that they could claim
>a reason to control USENET. Anyone could come up with any other formula and
>push it was a standard, thought it would be equally as meaningless.
>Recently, a newer version of the BI, called BI2, is being pushed as a
>stricter limit that will allow for even more cancels of posts that this
>group dislikes.
*While some people are apt to consider things like "spamming" (a term used
*to refer to excessive crossposting, excessive multiple posting, and other
*kinds of abusive behaviour) harmless, in practice this sort of behaviour
*if it were generally accepted would quickly make Usenet useless. For an
*example of what this "harmless" behaviour leads to, see the noise levels
*in alt.binaries.* ...
Note also that the "Breidbart Index" has no connection whatsover with the
the censoring of "unpopular opinions" alleged back in sections 2 and 3. It
is based on volume, period.
There is also a key misstatement in the description of the Breidbart
Index[7]. It's purpose is to determine if a person has posted too many
SUBSTANTIVELY IDENTICAL messages. If you have something to say, say it. Say
it several times if you feel you must. But be aware that there are, there
have to be, some limits. Usenet is big, but it is not infinite.
>Peter da Silva has recently been pushing for even stricter USENET article
>cancellation rules. He wants to cancel anything posted to more than 3
>groups, though in some cases posting up to 2 dozen groups may be an
>appropriate distribution method. This doesn't seem to concern him, nor does
>the extreme unpopularity of his opinions and actions, which are seen as a
>threat to USENET by many.
*Peter da Silva has implemented stricter rules on some experimental networks
*that are not part of Usenet proper, to see the results of tightly
*controlled crossposting limits. The actual limits are not strictly based on
*the number of groups... setting followups to fewer groups allows wider
*distribution.
*The people using these experimental networks, on several dozen sites, have
*found them to produce a much less noisy discussion forum without
*significantly restricting posting.
And he ought to know, too...
It is interesting to note how the author, after going through such pains to
portray unpopular opinions as objects of oppression earlier in this FAQ, now
turns and portrays Mr. da Silva's "unpopular opinion" as "a threat".
To answer another point, as an exercise, see if you can construct a subject
that is "on-topic" for more than eight distinct newsgroups.[101]
>The actions of the people who send forged cancel messages have severely
>harmed the net. In reaction, several organizations are looking for ways to
>bypass their actions to keep free expression possible, while adding
>features such as ad hoc moderating/advising to increase the value and
>openness of USENET.
Sadly, no one seems to know who these organizations are.
>What must always be remembered is that the responses to net abuse that are
>being used now (forged cancels, following the Breidbart index or other
>arbitrary scemes, etc.) only address symptoms and never the cause of the
>actual problem. Any reliance on them only serves to make the actual problem
>worse while no methods of stopping abuse are being developed. Those who
>attempt to enforce their methods on the net remain fixated on an old and
>useless paradigm and do not see the larger picture. They end up causing
>more problems than they solve and should be avoided.
One must also remember that the original paradigm (model, for those not into
90's-speak) for the Internet never envisioned its current use. Therefore any
solution, be it the current one, or any supplied by anyone else, will have
flaws.
Unfortunately, despite its stern criticism of current net abuse
countermeasures, this FAQ makes no effort to discover what the "actual
problem" with Usenet is, leaving the reader without clear direction as to
how to come up with new solutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>6. How can I stop the cabal so that my users and I may speak freely?
>The first thing you will want to do is to remove the power that certain
>individuals have claimed for themselves. They have no right to this power
>and should be removed from their positions because of their abuse and harm
>to the Internet.
*The disorganized groups of people Ricardo refers to as the Cabal do not
*prevent free speech. As proof, nobody's keeping him from posting his FAQs,
*even though by his own definition of how this imaginary Cabal behaves they
*would not be allowed.
Once again, as stated above, their employers are quite aware of their
activities. If they thought anything was wrong with them, they would have
long since been "removed from power" by now.
>David C Lawrence (ta...@uunet.uu.net)
>He attempts to control all aspects of USENET group creation and deletion.
>This means that he decides whether or not to send approval for a group
>creation or cancelation of a group that he does not approve of. This
>stifles attempts by interested people to have a "Big 8" group created to
>discuss timely matters. His control limits or completely destroys all
>attempts to gain decent message propagation across USENET, confining group
>discussions to obscure "alt" groups that are rarely propagated well, or at
>all, on most systems.
Mr. Lawrence is hardly a one man band. There is a very involved and
complicated process which is the currently accepted method for USENET group
creation and deletion. The are known as the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers[8].
>Chris Lewis (cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca)
>He sends thousands of forged cancels a month to destroy posts that he and
>his friends dislike. He claims to be doing a service and gets very angry
>when people point out that he is cancelling articles that they wanted to
>see or that he had no right to cancel.
Actually largely true, except for "gets very angry" bit. It is rather
doubtful that he gets mail complaining articles about what people "wanted to
see". If they didn't see it, how do they know the article existed? Most
often, such complaints stem from the occasional routing inconsistencies that
have been part of Usenet since its inception.
Also not mentioned is the fact that most agree with his assertion that he
provides a service. If they did not, they would not make use of it, and he
would not have the authority he does. Again, see the Anti-Spam site[6].
>John E. Milborn aka JEM (j...@xpat.com)
>He's another person who is proud of his forged cancel messages and thinks
>he is a crusader for content control. In a strange sort of way it is true
>that censorship and cancelling other people's articles is content control,
>but that's nothing to be proud of. He has recently claimed to have ceased
>his forged cancels, though forged cancel messages continue to flow from
>someone using his address.
I know little of this person. Can anyone fill in here? At any rate it seems
this person has made good on his claim after all.
>Robert Braver (rbr...@ohww.norman.ok.us)
>This guy joined the bandwagon and loves to send forged cancel messages too.
>But I bet he'd be upset if someone sent forged cancel messages in his name
>if they disliked his posts.
Obvious conjecture. Indeed, if it hasn't been obvious by now, this entire
FAQ is simply the personal opinion of the author and reflects his own
prejudices. His home page[11] reflects some of his other prejudices.
>Jan Isley (j...@bagend.atl.ga.us)
>As a major USENET vote keeper, he was exposed for vote fraud and shamefully
>stepped down from that position. Since then he has been less of a public
>threat to USENET though he still operates behind the scenes. Unfortunately,
>there is a great deal of resistance to the idea of having new elections for
>all of the newsgroups that were created or denied because of the massive
>vote fraud he perpetuated. He also has proclaimed himself the only
>authority on what posts are not permitted in the local atl hierarchy which
>resulted in another count of Isley being called a censor and control freak.
I know little about these incidents; however, I am certain the "resistance
to the idea of new elections" is largely due to the massive amount of
trouble these repeated votes would be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Kevin Podsiadlik (or, just KJP)
Save the people you love up to 100%:
PAY FOR YOUR OWN FRIGGIN PHONE CALLS!