[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:57:15 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
> >So, If you do not agree with the final definition, please contribute?
> 
> I don't.
> 
===================
Definition of abuse:
===================

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"


Thank you so much for your long and repetitive reply.

Regarding the definition of abuse however, you will need to be more
technically precise and exact about your dissent.

For example, 

> This would include, at the low end, just for example, spamming.
> You're *not* going to run down to your local police station screaming
> "Mommy! Mommy!  He spammed me!  Make him stop!"  You're not going to

The above definition DOES include spamming - You say it does not, etc
etc etc. etc.


Andre


> The bottom line here is that "abuse" should probably be all of the
> crap that there is universal or near universal agreeent is "bad"
> *and* that *fails* to rise to the level of being SOOOOOOOOO
> terrifically awfully bad that we acually want to risk calling in the
> already exceptionally busy (and notoriously ham-fisted) LE people to
> deal with it.
> 
> This would include, at the low end, just for example, spamming.
> You're *not* going to run down to your local police station screaming
> "Mommy! Mommy!  He spammed me!  Make him stop!"  You're not going to
> do that because (a) it would be silly and because (b) when you got
> there, even the cops would tell you how silly you were, and how much
> "real" work they have to do, e.g. monitoring terrorists and catching
> bank robbers.
> 
> So basically, all the stuff that we, as rational adult experienced
> Internet users agree that we *would* want to call LE in on is called
> "crime".
> 
> Meanwhile, everything else that we can all agree is "bad" and that
> "shouldn't happen on the civilized internet" but that *DOES NOT* quite
> rise to the level where it makes any sense to call in the LE people
> (e.g. route squatting, spamming) is "abuse".
> 
> We call this stuff "abuse" rather than "crime" because everybody
> agrees that it shouldn't happen, but 99.9% of all governments, all
> around the world, are too stupid to understand any of this stuff, and
> as a result, you won't find a single country, anywhere in the world,
> that has formally made route squatting a crime, and also, even my own
> idiotic country has actually *legalized* spamming.  So spamming is
> not a "crime"... at least not here in the United States, and at least
> not ACCORDING TO OUR MORONIC LAWS.
> 
> Spamming *is* however "abuse" on and of the Internet, and most of us,
> being adult experienced Internet usesrs would and do agree on that,
> *regardless* of what the law might say in any given meatspace
> geographical jurisdiction.  We know that certain things are
> "abuse" (e.g. spamming), even if the moronic bribed luddites in our
> respective national legislatatures do not.
> 
> So, to review:
> 
> 	crime -- Defined as whatever the dumbass meatspace legislators
> 		 in various dumbass meatspace jurisdictions say it is
> 
>         Internet abuse - Defined as whatever most or all of *us*
> (actual experienced Internet users with a technical clue) say
> 		 it is.
> 
> You can draw a simple Venn diagram, consisting of two circles, each
> representing the above two things.  And there is and will be some
> overlap, the amount or exact edges of which will be different in each
> different meatspace jurisdiction.  But to the extent that there is
> overlap, we agree that FOR OUR PURPOSES we prefer that for all those
> things that might qualify as being -both- "abuse" -and- "crime" we
> make a judgement call and say that we would prefer LE to just butt
> out and let us handle it, because if THEY do it, they will either
> phuck it up (a la Aaron Swartz) or they will waste their precious
> resources which should be used elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
>