On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:21:00 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

You might find "I know it when I see it" as reasonable a definition as this group is ever going to arrive at

We are all learning all the time - I learned from Gert Doering that there could be authorized 'abuse' - which of course is not abuse - as it is authorized... I think that this thread is and has been of value to many? Some people, even those under bridges, are forced to actually think about the issues and what abuse is and what it is not. just to simply define it as I will know it when I see it - is a very wrong attitude, I think? - this complicates the abuse issue and which is why there are so many places that still do not deal with abuse - they simply do not believe that whatever they are doing is abusive. Abuse is not about belief. Abuse is a real thing. People abuse animals. People abuse the Internet. You can never simply say: I will know animal abuse when I see it, or, I will know child abuse when I see it. It has to be defined and my attitude has to be: I have to define Internet Abuse and not, I will know it when I see it... Andre

--srs

...

On 27-Aug-2016, at 6:17 PM, ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:04:53 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The one takeaway i get from this seems to be that the bad guys are perfectly aware of just where they can find loose or poorly implemented security and abuse policies - who is incompetent, who is malicious, who to abuse, who not to abuse

And action if any gets taken only after significant pressure is applied.

true... as per the convo - easy to find a .ru upstream, etc.

But, it is becoming more obvious that before we can deal with anything properly anyway, we need to be able to properly define what it is.

How can anyone expect anyone to implement proper abuse policies if open society cannot even agree, openly, about what internet abuse even is?

Andre