What LL has done is comitted an online felony. Minimum fine of $5000. Save the board posts and go get her. Also, you can send this to her service provider.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), December 26, 1999

Answers

Satanta,

I think the bimbo is nuts and needs help... but what felony has she committed? Just for my own info. might effect my own trolling activities :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), December 26, 1999.

Was a law passed last year against spamming and DOS attacks. It works, all the SYSOPS needs to do is prove damages or Spam or DOS...this eves posts are proof positive. Might be a misdemeanor.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), December 26, 1999.

Thanx Satanta,

Had me worried there for a minute, I'd hate to lose my right to keep and bear arms over something as small as helping the nuts over at De bonkers look foolish :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), December 26, 1999.

Netghost...you get some raisin pie! You seem to be the first here that has spelled my name correctly.

Also...there is nothing illegal about posting your dislike or disaproval on a situation. BUT what LL has done is crossed the line. This is not her forum. Sha has been told to leave and not post here. Instead, she SPAMS the board, which is illegal. Also, she SPAMS using Yourdons name on his board that he pays for in a defamatory manor. That is also illegal. Something called Tresspass comes to mind. If you post on another board, even against someone I don't think there is anything anyone can do about it. But what's the point?

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), December 26, 1999.

SYSOPS - (and LL too) sorry about the last post. You were right to delete it.

Laura,

Here's where this spamming has gone. Satanta brought up the idea of prosecution. You've been arguing from a 1st Amendment POV. I want the Internet to be as free of government regulation as possible - and I'm a peace officer. I don't want an Internet Police agency. I don't want any more regulation than we already have here.

You disrupt the forum, people call in the government to "look into it". Some elected official comes up with a bright idea: tax it, regulate it, criminalize it.

I implore you to look beyond your gievance with this forum and think about the downside of being disruptive. Your response was "No damage - no felony." A simple legislative act could eliminate the "damage" element of the law. I don't want that to happen.

-- Darby (DarbyII@AOL.com), December 26, 1999.

Trespass is trespass. If the new guideline is that I'm forbidden to prosecute trespass on my *land* if I can't prove damage, then all is lost.

Property rights are *extremely* important. The pipeline, CPU cycles, and storage of the system hosting TB2000 are just as real as my five acres of dirt. If we allow trespassers to abuse *one* type of property, we've opened a pandora's box.

It's not about speech, it's not about inviting regulation... it's simply about the protection of property against trespass.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 26, 1999.

Darby...I agree with you. But enough is enough. Likely it would be on a local level rather than a .Gov level. But what she's doing is no different than if someone was to stand on the Sysops front lawn throwing rocks thru the window with signs calling them assholes and chanting "Hell no, I won't go!" What other options do they have after repeated attempts to get her to leave?

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), December 26, 1999.

Ron & Satanta,

Your property rights issues are well taken. And I agree that they are to be protected Hmmm...somewhere I remember taking some sort of an oath to do just that ;)

And enough is enough. I still need the aspirin.

My next concern is that Laura will claim that someone was using her handle (again). The "damage" element, BTW, is inflicted on AOL and/or Mindspring too. Misuse/fraudulent use of copyrighted material (company name) is actionable.

-- Darby (DarbyII@AOL.com), December 26, 1999.

Satanta,

I agree with the others.. no need to get gov.gov involved with this.... none of thier biz, and if it can't be taken care of on a "local" level... :-) there is always a back "orifice" to consider....

Got condoms?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), December 26, 1999.

There have been several of my posts deleted. I have never complained. Probably never will because I believe the system we are so graciously allowed to use belongs to a private organization, which would be completely within it's rights to remove the system at any time and with no explaination. Sometimes I loose my temper, when Dianne or one of the sysops deletes my stuff, I figure it saves me embarrassment as much as it saves others irritation.

As far as prosecution goes, I have to say I believe taking legal action against that person would be a good thing. Freedom is speech carries with it responsibilities. For each liberty there is a responsibility. I believe the second amendment is necessary and I also believe if I execrise that freedom, I have a responsibility to ensure that my children understand what responsibility goes with that liberty. Namely that they and I safeguard our weapons, that we use those weapons in defense or the procurement of food, that we ensure a reasonable degree of limited access to those weapons by others who do not understand the responsibility that accrues to the liberty.

Lady Logic has maliciously and wrongly denied OTHER people the right to free speech. For that reason she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

This does have the potential to become a very interesting thread. There seems to be a lot of thought going into the answers I see above my post.

I too do not want to see regulation of speech on the internet; however, I do want to see enforcement of existing statutes about security and privacy of systems. I do believe we need an 'Internet Police Force' albiet with very strict guidance as to what they may and may not do. I would like to see such an agency set up because of the violations of privacy that I have seen in my day to day operations.

I also believe that we need some very strict privacy statutes which constrain software developers and what they may and may not do. I have very serious concerns about the whole sale implementation of technologies that allow access to users local machines or information about what sites users visit. I don't believe it should be legal for Intel to put a unique indentifying number in a CPU or for Microsoft to include (by default) authorship information in every document published in MS Word and other MS Office products. I think cookies were a very serious breach of personal privacy. The straw that broke my back, however; was the _NSAKEY reported on 9 September by wired news. That little trick should be punished.

Technology is as dangerous a weapon as a firearm. It must also be developed with an eye to the responsibility that comes with access to the personal privacy of our citizens. I am of the opinion that we have failed in that regard. I say we because I am a Computer Scientist.

People, your privacy should be one of your highest concerns these days. Here is why. Software Engineers and Computer Scientists by virtue of their access to your personal computer, and it's access to the web, have direct access to your eyes and ears. Managers and marketeers decide which projects to implement. NONE of these people are licensed or have any legal restrictions placed upon them as to what technology they can install into YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY when they install a browser, etc... Because many folks have no idea how this technology works they are TRUSTING strangers with their privacy. That is a bad thing, and needs to be stopped, while that is still possible.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

I'll bet if somebody did a port scan on her system, found an open port (maybe 139 ?) and slipped her a trojan, she would be a little nicer after she got things put back together, huh ? Maybe a "smurf packet" ? Not quite as ugly but it sure makes ya sweat for a bit. She does deserve it after what she has pulled. And, anybody can do it so, what are we waiting on ? Hmm ?

-- Guess (doomer@home.now), December 26, 1999.

Now that is illegal. Shame on you.

-- Distance myself from you (lo@se.er), December 26, 1999.

Yeah, shame on you!! Now, how do we go about doing that again??? .

-- (sickof@these.trolls), December 26, 1999.

Education is your best defense.....

-- The Tutor (learn@be.aware), December 26, 1999.

Hee, Hee, I man after me own heart. Crank up that dialer!

-- Yeah (I@like.it), December 26, 1999.

Guess; Your suggestion indicates a lack of understanding or trojans. Port 139 is the netbios connection to Microsoft Networking. Unless she had an open disk share you would not be able to drop a trojan on her disk. Also accessing that port is usually not possible unless you are in the same subnet address space AND she is running Netbui over IP which usually generates a warning on first connect with that configuration. Also that is a definate felony... not a maybe felony. That one will get you a sentence if it can be proven.

Smurfing is normally does not depend upon malicious packets structures rather it is a means of flooding the target with response packets from another network. In otherwords it ties up her link to the internet and will not take her machine down. What you are thinking about is probably a fragmented packet attack. Most IP stacks these days are armoured against those as well. Haven't seen one that works reliably in over a year now. The last was NewTear. The upgrades to the Microsoft and Linux stacks cleared up those sorts of DOS attacks WHICH ARE ALSO A FELONY.

Probably a bad idea, someone might be watching.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

The internet is our last free frontier. WWW= wild wild world. Bring in the "Internet Police" and it's all over. No more "Tianaman Square", no more truth anywhere. If you can't "live" with the internet, it's good, it's bad, and it's ugly, stay out of it.

The only policing that should be done is Self-policing. It takes guts and effort to fight with the disruptors, the sysops here are a fine example of that. And those who take the time and effort to protect their computers and put up with the temporary inconvenience of spamming without whining.

And LL should definitely get some of her own medecine.

-- (free@world.net), December 26, 1999.

There was a time when the STRONG ruled civilization. Law is the great equalizer. It is the thing that makes it possible for one little old woman who refuses to go to the back of the bus to generate healthy change in society. Without law, we are ruled by the strong. Mark this down as prophecy, "An Internet without Law WILL be ruled by the elite hacker. He/She will be a person who is a law unto themself. They will invade and possess the computing and information resources of the innocent and weak. They will control what is known about whom and who is allowed the liberty of using the medium and be answerable to no person." If you believe anything else, in my most certainly not so humble opinion, you have not been paying attention.

That you advocate a position of revenge and retaliation simply validates my point. I don't say this to offend. There have been times I have found it VERY difficult not to actively hit back at someone trying to hack into my network. I have often wrestled with just going in and taking out the bad guys computer as it would have greatly simplified my task. Over time I have come to realize that I don't want to do that. I want that person in jail, doing time, so that the next guy (who will be along in a day or two) decides it ain't worth it.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

Agreed. Ladylogic belongs in prison. Hopefully for life.. .. .

-- (lock@her.up), December 26, 1999.

Congratulations one and all. Though Laura was thoroughly disruptive last night she managed to open a thoughtful and very interesting thread. Even ugliness can have a good side. Its no coincidence that the First Amendment involves freedom of speech.

-- Darby (DarbyII@AOL.com), December 26, 1999.

Darby.

TB2000 and freedom of Speech = oxymoron. One of the more positive aspects of the rollover will be the disappearance of this forum. You can be assured that MIT will not allow this delusional insanity to continue beyond this upcoming Friday. This post will be deleted but who cares at this point?

-- Look (at@the.facts), December 26, 1999.

Looks like chuckie is back. Yes indeed FREEDOM OF SPEECH is here, alive, and well. Freedom to be an A**H**E and deny others freedom of speech is not... Go away, fool.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.