<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000; font-size:12pt;"><div>"Some countries don't agree with a rule, therefore there should be no rules"</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchy">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchy</a></div><div><br></div><div><i>"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose"<br>"Absence of any form of authority."</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;" webmail="1">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: Abuse Police<br>
From: ox <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za">andre@ox.co.za</a>><br>
Date: Fri, August 25, 2017 12:10 am<br>
To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a><br>
<br>
What argument in favor of anarchy? <br>
<br>
Are you confused or a troll?<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:00:54 -0700<br>
" " <<a href="mailto:phishing@storey.xxx">phishing@storey.xxx</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Your argument in favour of anarchy does not apply in real life, so<br>
> why should it apply on the internet.<br>
> <br>
> Some people might think robbing banks is ok because the banks can<br>
> afford it. That doesn't mean laws aren't enacted because "not<br>
> everyone" agrees with it.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police<br>
> > From: ox <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za">andre@ox.co.za</a>><br>
> > Date: Thu, August 24, 2017 10:04 pm<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a><br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Hmm, if it is spam malware, in .ru for example (and many other<br>
> > countries), it may actually be be legal software. so, no.. too<br>
> > general<br>
> > <br>
> > maybe you mean slavery, cannibalism & child abuse?<br>
> > (then, the Internet may be used to assist in the crimes similar to a<br>
> > car used to assist in a robbery...)<br>
> > <br>
> > Which specific Internet abuse qualifies for "internationally agreed<br>
> > prohibited items" ?<br>
> > <br>
> > and the real question still remains: "how tech should respond to<br>
> > abhorrent content, and whether content should be policed by<br>
> > registrars, browsers, or social networks"<br>
> > <br>
> > I say no. Whichever region law enforcement should enforce laws. Not<br>
> > huge multinational companies enforcing their monoculture on the<br>
> > world.<br>
> > <br>
> > Andre<br>
> > <br>
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:58:47 +0530<br>
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a href="mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com">ops.lists@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > With a few exceptions you are correct - Child abuse material,<br>
> > > malware and such, where there is broad international consensus<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > On 24-Aug-2017, at 2:09 PM, Vittorio Bertola<br>
> > > > <<a href="mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com">vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > There can be no such thing as "internationally agreed prohibited<br>
> > > > items", as these are highly cultural. Even just inside the EU,<br>
> > > > for example, there<br>
> > ><br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>