[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble

Please, Andre. I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to be so so vulgar that I can understand your extraordinary knowledge about abuse on the Internet. Do not worry, your technical colleagues will understand you.

Sorry my low intellectual capacity, but you used the following expressions to explain what is not Internet Abuse:

> No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes.

Now, it is clear that you could also have said: the cat crushed by that car is not of account of this abuse group. I'm sorry but I thought you was talking about internet.

When I wrote:
> If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone used the means and tools provided by RIRs, Registrars and ISPs.

You reply:
> Just stealing a pc - Is called theft...
> I hope this helps you understand?
> If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse?
> Thank you so much!

Disregarding the excess of arrogance in your words I explained how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse:

> If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right?
And you wrote in your second reply:
> If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc It is NOT Internet Abuse... (emphasis added)

Wow! Now we are talking about breaking and entering to steal objects, that is, we are talking about the cat crushed by that car is not of account of that abuse group.
Compare with the original sentence: “No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes.”

You were talking about potatoes and I was talking about orange. The difference is that my orange was synonymous of Internet and their potato was ... potatoes.
Just to be technically clear :)
Pall, you are a real world example of a single resource abuse. But your definition still holds up...
Good lucky
Marilson

From: ox 
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:42 AM
To: Marilson 
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:16:09 +0200
> "Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it
> > was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? Are you
> > talking about what? Home invasion? Theft of objects?
> Just read what you, yourself are typing above:
> "If a computer was infected" - this means that: 
> Someone or something did something
> Someone or Something (or a program or whatever) DID infect
> So, the definition of Internet Abuse, As I have stated it - Works
> perfectly fine.
> Maybe If you read the definition again, it can help you?
> 
>  "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
>  rights of another resource"
> 
> This means: Someone (or something) USED you resource (Your PC) 
> to send spam or do something or use it for...
> 
Just in case someone technical now wants to tell me that a "pc" is not
an Internet Resource, PLEASE note: I am simply making it VERY simple so
that Marilson can understand it also...

In the example - the internet resource would of course NOT be Marilson's
PC - BUT his PC's resource (IP number, etc) or the resource that
Marilson's PC uses, on the Internet, - to abuse ANOTHER resource...

Just to be technically clear :)

And then, there is still no real world example of a single resource
abuse. So, I guess that means that the definition still holds up...

Andre


> See?
> 
> - If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc
>  It is NOT Internet Abuse...
> 
> If they break in and USE  your PC to send spam - Then of course it is
> Internet Abuse - and the definition holds up.
> 
> BUT
> 
> You are changing the point... You were siding with Gunther, and what
> Gunther said was:
> 
> a Single resource can do Internet Abuse...
> 
> You are involving multiple resources and then claiming that it
> addresses the first problem...
> 
> Not cool, so either you are arguing for the simple sake of arguing or
> you do not understand the problem.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Andre
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160827/39a62101/attachment.html>