No. That is not what I said. What I said is that law enforcement should enforce laws and not huge global multinationals forcing their monoculture on the planet. Each country on the planet has laws. This is factual, and not an opinion. Irrespective of whether you agree with those laws, or not. We, all of us on this list Are currently (right now) subjects of the global multinationals. And, each passing day, these multinationals are exerting more and more, pervasively, their power of shaping our culture, what we think, our opinions, what we may see, what we may read, etc. For example: If you have a @gmail.com account, and Google decides for any reason that you should not read or receive my email, you will not. If I could only contact you through Google Phone (if that existed) and had no other means of communicating with you, I would have been edited out of your life. I am not just talking about Internet Abuse, but from an Internet abuse perspective, please re-read my original post. This is the discussion, who is the "police" in future, will it be the registry? registrars? Hosting companies? Google? who? and who's laws will these enforce? their "own" laws? the US law? EU law? currently multinational companies make their own "laws" and each country law enforcement power is becoming less and less each passing year. Andre On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:08:11 -0700 " " <phishing@storey.xxx> wrote:
"Some countries don't agree with a rule, therefore there should be no rules"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchy
"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose" "Absence of any form of authority."
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: Abuse Police From: ox <andre@ox.co.za> Date: Fri, August 25, 2017 12:10 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
What argument in favor of anarchy?
Are you confused or a troll?
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:00:54 -0700 " " <phishing@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@ox.co.za> Date: Thu, August 24, 2017 10:04 pm To: anti-abuse-wg@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@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@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