[anti-abuse-wg] So many idiots. So little time.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 07:50, Alun Davies <adavies at ripe.net> wrote:

> I’m out of office till 22 August. Any RIPE Labs related queries can be
> sent to labs at ripe.net and one of my colleagues will get back to you.
>

irony - three unsolicited messages on the same subject -  appropriate too


> Jeroen,
> > ist's hard to distinguish between straight statements and serious
> questions on one hand and sarcasm, rhetorical questions and strawman
> arguments on the other hand in written communication, especially when there
> sometimes seems to be a "mode switch". I'm trying to respond seriously and
> to be explicit about how I understood your statements.
> >
> > Am 14.08.22 um 10:26 schrieb jeroen at hackersbescherming.nl:
> > My bad! I assumed that when u create or follow a training course that u
> want
> > to learn or teach a way that ALWAYS works.
> >
> > I'm unsure whether you meant that seriously or sarcastically.
> >
> > Of course the assumption is wrong. Training is a way of improving your
> ability to do something, not of learning something that always works. A
> football team will train to learn to play better and win more games, not to
> learn a away that will let them win ALWAYS. Similarly, an abuse desk team
> will train to learn ways of detecting abuse earlier, to distinguish between
> true and false abuse accusations, to use tools and automation to focus
> their human attention on the tricky problems instead of doing rote work,
> etc. None of that will guarantee that there will be no abuse from their
> network, but it will likely reduce the amount by catching it quicker and
> making it unattractive for spammers. Of course, that's the theory, but my
> experience from the other side of the fence is that quick and swift action
> is the primary thing that reduces the amount of spam, and it should work
> equally well and on a larger volume on the provider side.
> >
> >
> > With my assumption of the below.
> > To solve the abuse problem u either need a system that can hold the
> abuser
> > responsible or and that would be even better u need a system where nobody
> > would grow an interest to even try to abuse
> >
> > Did you forget a period here? As such, this sentence sort of makes
> sense, although I would not strive to "solve" the abuse problem but to
> reduce the volume and impact on recipients. Holding abusers responsible may
> be one way (although it would be necessary to define what that means).
> >
> > A system where nobody would grow an interest to even try abuse is
> impossible, we know from the non-effectiveness of capital punishment
> against murder etc. that there is no effective deterrant that keeps people
> from wanting to do and actually doing horrible things. The only "effective"
> way would be to lock up everybody as a safety measure. That's like blocking
> access to port 25, surely it keeps out the spam, but would have some
> undesirable side effects.
> >
> > So, this is not what I want.
> >
> >  and when u start thinking into
> > this direction all the other "BIG" problems in the world will become
> easy to
> > solve. (Yes u read this right they are easy to solve, we currently just
> use
> > the wrong systems (all over the world) to guide and lead us)
> > Is this a strawman argument of the form "we should not try to solve
> problem X because we can't solve problem Y and that's even bigger"? That's
> faulty logic, I assume written tongue-in-cheek.
> >
> > When u would have a good system then a large portion or maybe even all of
> > the current training material would be irrelevant since it is based on
> the
> > current system that doesn't provide a solution for the problem.
> >
> > That's an assumption about the training material (which I haven't seen
> and know nothing about) and the current system that I don't share. It seems
> to imply that there is no way of reducing the amount of spam in the current
> system, which is IMO not true.
> >
> > I do think that the current system is lacking in some areas but is
> overall usable, and that it is possible to reduce abuse within the
> framework of the current system. Usable training material would teach what
> can be done at one point (one provider) to achive this without requiring
> undue cooperation from other players or changing the system. That is,
> actually doable changes to one's operation to reduce the amount of abuse.
> >
> >
> > What u are saying is that when I create a training that teaches 1+1=11
> and
> > someone out there wants to learn this that this would be a usefull
> training
> > .... (maybe for someone to do on his own but not for a global/regional
> > solution).
> > Looks like a strawman argument again. I'm not proposing that training
> should teach nonsense and that someone out there could want to learn
> nonsense, so this would be useful training. What I was saying is that a
> training course (which I presumed teaches something actually useful in
> reducing the spam load) can only be useful for organizations that want to
> get closer to that goal. If an organization does not share that goal (or
> has different main goals), they most likely would not want or need the
> training.
> >
> > It doesn't matter to which group u belong to, in the end we all belong to
> > the same group called Humans....
> > We need a fair worldwide system where power is removed from all
> > individuals!!!! (Since power allways creates a form of abuse)
> >
> > Looks like a hyperbole/strawman argument again: "If we can't solve the
> worldwide power abuse issues, we should not even try to fight local abuse".
> Faulty logic.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jeroen
> > Cheers,
> > Hans-Martin
> >
> > --
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
> change your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>


-- 
Alan Levin
----------------------------------
+27 21 4882820 (ddi)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20220822/46b939bf/attachment.html>