🚀 go-pugleaf

"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote in message
news:arhn62$5h2$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <4pUC9.14742$bh1.1893189@news1.telusplanet.net>,
> Sharx. <sharx35@nospam.ca> wrote:
> :ISP's should be considered utilities.....EPCOR doesn't care what I do
with
> :my power or water.....as long as I pay the bill and don't damage their
> :infrastructure.
>
> EPCOR likely *does* care about what you do with your power and
> water: you probably just never set about exploring all the
> different ways that you could be a public nuisance by using
> the service EPCOR provides. If you were, for example, to deliberately
> start flooding the street to annoy your neighbours, then you
> shouldn't be surprised if EPCOR turned off your supply.

Nope, EPCOR wouldn't care. However the City Police and/or Bylaw Enforcement
officials WOULD care. I'd be ticketed and/our summonsed to court. But my
water supply would be untouched...as long as I paid for all that water. Same
thing if I used electricity to do nasty things to people touching my metal
gates. City Police would be interested but EPCOR? Not.


>
> There are many ways to use internet connections to annoy people.
> Spam people. Portscan them. Troll. Top-post. There are also an
> amazing number of people who do these kinds of things,
> to be annoying, or because they feel they have a "right" to do so,
> or on the principle that anything that isn't clearly illegal is
> beyond criticism.
>
> You referenced "their infrastructure", which puts the emphasis on the
> scope of "their".  If you were to offer a professional spammer a
> contract that said "We won't kick you off as long as you don't spam any
> of OUR users", then the spammer would quickly agree: spammers love
> safe-havens from which they can address the entire rest of the world.
> And that's a very serious problem: the -reach- of the Internet is global,
> so if you utility-ize with protections based upon how your behaviour
> affects the locals, then you've given free reign to ravage and
> plunder everyone else.
> --
> "Meme" is self-referential; memes exist if and only if the "meme" meme
> exists. "Meme" is thus logically a meta-meme; but until the existance
> of meta-memes is more widely recognized, "meta-meme" is not a meme.
>    -- A Child's Garden Of Memes