[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - Terminology used in the definition

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

>=================
>Definition of abuse 
>=================
>
>"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
>of another resource"
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>Terminology used in the definition
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>(1) Sanctioned
>An action, event or situation that specifically or expressly gives
>permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which
>authorises that situation, event or action  

So, if, for example, I, Ron Guilmette, give my friend Joe Hacker,
my permission to DDoS your corporate web site, that's OK then, yes?
Because he has my permission.  Yes?

Before responding, in heat or otherwise, please read and consider:

To any who may think that I'm just quibbling and/or being pedantic
about the definition of the terms of reference here, I'd like to
just mention a short and rather famous phrase from another document
where the terms of reference were also not adequately or precisely
defined, at the outset, and where that lack of specificity, in the
end, gave rise to what may perhaps have been the greatest single
tragedy to have ever befallen my own great nation:

     "... that all men are created equal..."

At the time that was written and signed, there was an *implicit*
understanding among some of those who signed it that the term
"all men" in this context was quite obviously intended to mean
"all white men".  Some of the signers believed that's what it
meant.  Some others did not.

That simple lack of specificity festered, like an open gangrenous
wound, in the American body politic until some four score and some
odd years later when the differing interpretations finally broke
out into armed conflict... The American Civil War, in which brother
killed brother, and over 600,000 Americans lost their lives.

And of course, I haven't even mentioned the civil strife and
hardships of the early 20th Century, as the original term of
reference, "all men", slowly started to become redefined,
yet again, to mean "all human persons, both male and female"...
a redefinition that is still a work-in-progress as of this writing,
a full century after it began.

So before anybody *else* tells me... like Andre... that I'm just
nitpicking or being pedantic, I refer you again to the phrase "...
that all men are created equal..."  and ask you to consider that
the final and total costs of your ambiguities may, in the end, perhaps
be borne not just by you, but perhaps also by your children as well.

Words matter.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  I have no real feeling, one way or the other, about Andre's
general _formulation_ of the definition of abuse.  It may perhaps
be great.  It may perhaps be the absolutely best and most concise
way of stating our common beliefs on this subject.  It's not the
general formulation I have issues with.  It's only the lack of
clarity with respect to the terms of reference.  Once those are
adequately and crisply clarified, I might actually like what
Andre proposes.