ours too. But we had no actual information that the url was being distributed, and no complaint. The tech, matter of fact, had no reason to be in that directory at all. He was just bored out of his mind and clicking around. Sooo.... for reasons of manpower alone, plus the implications, we let it go.
We did cooperate with at least one major hacking investigation that I was aware of. Dana On 8/16/05, SStewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I worked for an ISP, our TOS clearly spelled out that while we were > pretty liberal (we co locate a couple of legal porn sites, and hosted a few > more) Things like Child Pornography, hacking sites and warez sites would not > be tolerated and we would assist law enforcement with prosecution of anything > or anyone related to it > > Scott A. Stewart, > Web Application Developer > > Engineering Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS) > 14026 Thunderbolt Place, Suite 300 > Chantilly, VA 20151 > Phone: (703) 995-1737 > Fax: (703) 834-5527 > > "Many thousands of years ago, a blue faced Pict stepped on a bloated sheep > carcass... and thus the Pipes were born" > > .... the Scottish Rogues > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 03:26 pm > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: pro or con... > Importance: Low > > It's a tough call. Because it's kiddie porn you want to say turn the > bastard in. There are two problems with that however. > > When I was doing tech support for a web host, someone noticed what > appeared to be child porn in someone's directory. After some > discussion, we did nothing because 1) there was no report or > complaint. The tech that noticed this was merely bored and clicking > around. For all we knew the pictures were just being stored. Most > importantly though, once we took responsibility for the contents of > people's web directories, would we have to pre-approve them all? And > what about things that are less obviously wrong, like, oh, political > speech? > > Secondly, back to the computer in question, we don't know if the files > in question were cache files or original material, or if they were > simply pictures of children naked. There are possible innocent > explanations for the cache files, and for the pictures of naked > children. At what point do you decide that such things are criminal? > > Dana > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 08/15/2005 > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| All-in-one: antivirus, antispam, firewall for your PC and PDA. Buy Trend Micro PC-cillin Internet Security http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=60 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169692 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
