This subject was bound to come up. If you give something out for free and you can not track the users of it, abuse will quickly follow.
There is software to deal with this problem. The only problem I can see are the encrypted Torrents connections. What might fix it is to install software that triggers when someone tries to a big download, they are rate limited. It might be time for So Cal Free net to start diving into the area of user management. Which I think was bound to happen. Phil Karn wrote: > Steve Shapery wrote: > >> All they (yes, they, not he.. there were 6 concurrent users abusing >> the service with P2P and Bittorrent sessions) cared about was their warez. >> >> So, if anyone asks, the Normal Heights node is offline due to abuse. > > I've been meaning to get involved in Socalfreenet for some time, and the > abuse issue is the #1 reason I've been putting it off. I know it's an > uncomfortable topic, but I have no experience in providing IP > connectivity to the public and would like the benefit of the group's > experience. > > Basically, I'm happy to volunteer my time, expertise and home network > connection (Speakeasy) to help others -- but not if it'll get ME in trouble. > > Speakeasy is more enlightened and geek-friendly than your average ISP. > Not many ISPs officially let you resell or even share your connection > with your neighbors. But there's a catch: > > >As a NetShare Admin, you are responsible for all traffic taking place > >on your circuit, whether generated by yourself or your NetShare > >Customers. This covers abuse, reasonable use, etc. > > I emailed Speakeasy and asked what this meant. I said that my neighbors > are all good people as far as I know. But suppose one of my IP addresses > shows up where it shouldn't and the FBI sends them a subpoena (or one of > those "national security letters" we've been hearing so much about). > Would Speakeasy at least explain that I share my connection as they rush > to be cooperative? > > No response. > > In a world where most people never set WiFi passwords, and where botnets > relay 80-90% of all spam and grow to 50K-100K nodes each, one would > *think* that a mere IP address wouldn't constitute probable cause for a > raid or a RIAA lawsuit. But one would be wrong. > > What do you do about this beyond making users agree to an acceptable use > policy? Who owns the public IP addresses that they use? Has anybody ever > been contacted by law enforcement about a Socalfreenet user, and were > they reasonable or heavy handed about it? What about Speakeasy -- are > they reasonable, or do they just cut you off? > > Thanks, > > --Phil > > _______________________________________________ > SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List > To unsubscribe, please visit: > http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org -- -- Jason Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List To unsubscribe, please visit: http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org
