Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Removing net.flame Message-ID: <697@vortex.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 03:33:06 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.697 Posted: Thu Jun 27 03:33:06 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 00:23:08 EDT References: <1818@amdcad.UUCP> Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 35 Xref: watmath net.news:3509 net.news.group:3192 Exactly HOW do you go about "removing a site" from the net? (I intend this as a rhetorical question, not as a trigger for endless replies on this topic!) A site simply changes its name and/or finds sites that are willing to feed it. It isn't practical for everyone to install software to try find and filter certain articles--and people would rapidly learn how to bypass these in various ways anyway. The phone-based Usenet is by DEFINITION an uncontrollable free-for-all. As the number of sites and users increases, we can expect to see more "offensive" articles that attract much more attention and waste much more of everyone's time than other articles. That's the name of the game. Wait until there are, oh, 200 thousand people or so on the net. Then you'll REALLY see the silly putty start to fly. It might be sooner than one might think. --- By the way, the UCLA student convicted a couple of days ago of playing games with various ARPA and other computers (in other words, he mucked around with typical non-classified R&D computers) wasn't even a legit user of the UCLA-LOCUS system. In fact, UCLA computers were among the ones he attacked, and the UCLA CS dept. was involved in helping to track him down. This guy was apparently doing things like changing people's passwords and altering/deleting files, and left a trail of muck the size of tank tracks. He was convicted for "malicious" activities, and indeed what he was doing sure seems to have been malicious in nature. Anyway, don't blame the UCLA machines on the net for him. He wasn't one of their own. --Lauren--