[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:

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

That is a complete misreading of what I wrote.

My only comment what was to say that I disagree with your formulation
of the definition (of "abuse").  I did not specifically pick out or
mention what thing or things I disagreed with.  (However since you
made an issue of it, now I will.  See my P.S. below.)

What I did do instead was to formulate, from scratch, my own definition
of "internet abuse", then presented it, and the rationale for it, totally
without any reference of any kind, either positive or negative, to anybody
else's preferred definition.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  If specifically asked however, I would critique your current working
definition as follows:

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

This does not cover AT ALL cases where fradulent data has been deliberately
entered into the WHOIS data base.  You attempt to ignore this entire
problem area... to just sweep the whole thing under the rug as if it doesn't
exist... kinda makes me wonder if you are just shilling for Sasha Luck,
who doesn't want to see there be a WHOIS data base AT ALL because, you
know, god forbid that anybody or any company should ever actually be held,
you know, accountable.  No no no!  We can't have THAT now can we?

So?  Are you shilling for the "pro-privacy" and "anti-transparency" lobby,
or what?  It's not like you could have missed the fact that bogus WHOIS data
has been a topic here recently.

Further critique:

    Your "definition" will require five additional definitions of its own
    before it will even mean a blasted thing, actually, to anybody:

    Define "sanctioned".  (Sanction by whom? Sanctioned by what?  The law?)

    Define "use".  (If I send a packet to you, did I just "use" you?)

    Define "resource".  (Do resources include WHOIS records?  If not, why not?)

    Define "infringe". (If I make a copy of your webpage, have I infringed?)

    Define "rights".  (Which rights, in particular?  Who or what grants these
			"rights" you speak of?  God?  IANA?  RIPE?  My local
			city council?)

    Until you define those additional five things, your definition doesn't
    even MEAN anything.  Not in any real, meaningful, or concrete sense
    at least.

    That's why I didn't even think the whole thing was even worth commenting
    on, quite frankly, i.e. because it seems so tenuous and incomplete.  So
    I just got out a fresh blank sheet of paper and started writing my own
    version, which I posted, explained, and provided necessary definitions
    for, so that readers would have a prayer in hell of being able to at
    least understand what it means.