[anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: Abuse Police

What argument in favor of anarchy? 

Are you confused or a troll?


On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:00:54 -0700
"   " <phishing at storey.xxx> wrote:

> Your argument in favour of anarchy does not apply in real life, so
> why should it apply on the internet.
> 
> Some people might think robbing banks is ok because the banks can
> afford it. That doesn't mean laws aren't enacted because "not
> everyone" agrees with it.
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
> > From: ox <andre at ox.co.za>
> > Date: Thu, August 24, 2017 10:04 pm
> > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm, if it is spam malware, in .ru for example (and many other
> > countries), it may actually be be legal software. so, no.. too
> > general
> > 
> > maybe you mean slavery, cannibalism & child abuse?
> > (then, the Internet may be used to assist in the crimes similar to a
> > car used to assist in a robbery...)
> > 
> > Which specific Internet abuse qualifies for "internationally agreed
> > prohibited items" ?
> > 
> > and the real question still remains: "how tech should respond to
> > abhorrent content, and whether content should be policed by
> > registrars, browsers, or social networks"
> > 
> > I say no. Whichever region law enforcement should enforce laws. Not
> > huge multinational companies enforcing their monoculture on the
> > world.
> > 
> > Andre
> > 
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:58:47 +0530
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > With a few exceptions you are correct - Child abuse material,
> > > malware and such, where there is broad international consensus
> > >
> > > > On 24-Aug-2017, at 2:09 PM, Vittorio Bertola
> > > > <vittorio.bertola at open-xchange.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There can be no such thing as "internationally agreed prohibited
> > > > items", as these are highly cultural. Even just inside the EU,
> > > > for example, there
> > >
> > 
> > 
> >