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