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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:06:20 -0300
"Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 

Your take away should be to learn better English :)

When you say: My Computer was stolen

It means that - Someone physically took your computer away from you 

And, this is exactly why we need a good definition of abuse. It is all
about words.

Marilson cannot use the word 'stolen' in reference to his PC being
compromised, hacked or turned into a zombie 

as, in truth, his physical PC is still (I assume) sitting on his desk
and is being used to be abusive...

And, Marilson, telling me that I am an example of a single abuse
resource, when all I am doing is simply trying to understand what the
heck you are talking about (as you are using the wrong English words) 
is not cool. I did not once call you any names or say anything
personally rude about you, I know exactly how fast things can be in a
third or fourth or even fifth+ language :(

Glad you accepted that there is no single resource abuse scenarios.

And thank you for confirming but I know that the abuse definition still
holds up.

Andre


> 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
> > 
>