New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Just a tad...
I would really suggest that this thread should close. Why? From a providers point of view,
If my business is having issue or service I provide, I already have to deal with my user base via official channel such as email, helpdesk, phone, chat etc. Than I am already dealings with the current issue and would like to focus only on my active clients service and issue. Now if there are third party sites, outside my control, where users who might or might not(most of them are not) requires my attention; it will only create additional work for me trying sort everything out, reply to people etc and might eventually waste more time then necessary and could not focus on my main issue and could take more time to fix it.
Just my honest opinion.
Hum, I dont think anyone here suggested that. Some ppl say they cancelled, however, they didnt say "unless you cancel too we wont talk to you anymore". Or they wont contribute to LET, or will obscure their stats until you cancel too.
I do agree this is blown out of proportion, however, but it is good material for hosts here to see how ppl react at various decisions IPXcore took.
I think the idea is: Protect customer data at any cost, even for ppl that dont hold their end of the deal, be transparent with your doings, even if it means showing some bad stats. Dont "f***" with admins, even indirectly, too. Transparency won Damian a lot of fans, but things changed, unfortunately and the mood also changed within LET.
We like to know things, we share info, we even (tho i dont like that) go after personal details of the ppl that screw us over. Asking threads closure to minimize exposure on google or whatever will NEVER get you points, in any situation, and this is absolutely clear after Randy issue already.
Going for it indirectly is even worse, in my opinion, we are not stupid enough not to understand this and adding any kind of "incentive" will surely be counterproductive.
M
Edit:
Nothing stops you to ignore this or just say we are working on it, more details on twitter/main page/whmcs, whatever.
Requesting thread closure is not going to d anything else than make ppl believe you want to hide something because you have bigger problems than you wish to admit. This is not like personal privacy, the customers and the potential customers have the right to be informed and talking to each other and sharing opinions about your service should NEVER be hindered if it is decent and genuine.
This is not a provider's place, but a consumer's place. Providers and their offers are tolerated because they are informative and they fit the criteria in order to serve the consumer interest in a low priced decent service.
If all providers would understand this, half the problems would be gone.
Indeed we do. Here are some counterpoints:
47 USC § 605( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title47/html/USCODE-2011-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec605.htm ) references this from the customer's standpoint; as in, customer will not disseminate company's data. The focus of the law is regarding decrypting Satellite TV. The law is poorly written otherwise, to the point where it's applied to other providers here, and I could also weasel out of it with exception (b)(1). Additionally, I couldn't find any instances where the law was applied to internet communications. If you have a Hein account, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/fedcom41&div=8&id=&page= is an interesting read.
California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 - Business and Professions Code (sections 22575 and 22579)(i'm guessing you actually meant 22575 THRU 22579, as 22579 is a date) - Noted, and is valid, as we have customers in California. This also specifies that the privacy policy has an effective date; can't think of any providers that satisfy this requirement. Not the point of the discussion though.
Regarding 15 USC § 6501 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap91-sec6501.htm ), this statement exists:
We are not directed to children, or have knowledge that we are collecting information from a child.
I am now, moved house Friday and half of Saturday, spent half of Saturday and all of Sunday in the hospital.
Regarding the Pingdom debacle: I'm uncertain how it was decided that changing the Pingdom reports to private-only was a valid method for dealing with anything. I'm goign to have a discussion with Adam about it, as I was MIA when it occurred. We've always made a point to remain transparent.
Therefore, I do apologize to the LET Admins and LET community for that which transpired.
Interesting graphs from Observium:
Here's our new privacy policy. Adam will be putting it on the website later today:
Interestingly, I just looked at 5 of the more popular VPS hosts on LET, and only one of them had a privacy policy.
This is not OK because sets you as sole policeman, prosecutor, juror and judge and I am sure nobody will be ok about terms like "willfully" since you have no way to know, even if unbiased, what ppl thought then. Could have been an honest mistake, like giving the credentials to some "friend" for example, or a bad password.
It is not acceptable in my view as it stands, but, since I am not a customer, don't have to agree with it
The rest is lawyer business and I think they already have enough money, no need to give them more.
M
For clarification, by this I mean that when the user responds that they were ddosing knowingly (as such happened last week), then their information will be shared. I do not mean that I or we will determine what constitutes willful violation or not.
I'm not sure how to word it better; I am open to suggestions.
LOL. Do you understand what "Under no circumstances" means?
As i've said multiple times already, this isn't an issue of legality or not having a privacy policy.
I think you will be better off saying you will disclose their info to the proper authorities only and public databases of abusers after the required procedures have been followed.
I would personally agree with that formula.
M
its all good now IPXcore..
you can add.. if you willfully violate our Acceptable Use Policy/Terms of Service, and it gets proved in our logs/graphs/reports, we...
You are in over your head. Just admit it.
Man up for once in your life.
so you are saying adam did all this? and you dont know?
@maounique @gsrdgrdghd, updated:
Effective Date: September 4th, 2012
Under no circumstances will IPXcore disseminate your personal information to any person or organization.
EXCEPTION: if you willfully violate our Acceptable Use Policy/Terms of Service, we reserve the right to disclose, without your consent, information about you to law enforcement, and public or private third parties we deem appropriate, such as public databases like fraudrecord.com, at our sole discretion.
Various cookies are set by our website and control panels. They are used to ensure proper logins, and for session tracking purposes.
You have the right to amend or delete information kept on file with IPXcore. You must ensure that amended information is truthful and verifiable, as outlined in the AUP/TOS.
Adam did things like try to strongarm the LET admins into closing the thread by 'giving' the public Pingdom reports back. I'm considering discontinuing my involvement with this project, as I'm not sure what Adam's agenda is anymore.
I really have to apologize, but I simply could not resist:
Will now go to the cellar to be ashamed. See you.
Adam did things like try to strongarm the LET admins into closing the thread by 'giving' the public Pingdom reports back. I'm considering discontinuing my involvement with this
project, as I'm not sure what Adam's agenda is anymore.
maybe you should only allow access to this LET account to yourself only. giving access to someone else will break your Brand's name
We are, as of this writing, equal partners.
I saw that, I apologize for that. I'm not really sure what else to say here; we fucked up on that.
For things to disintegrate into shambles with me being gone for three days is what makes me reconsider my involvement with the project.
I'm the only one with access to this LET account.
opps. there are 2 guys. apologies.. well i guess its all clear now
@Damian Project? Are you saying you're leaving Ipxcore?
shud be meaning leaving LET.. as the issues here not so grave to leave IPX
Personally I do not think it was dealt with amazingly and now a policy has been put into place basically saying if they feel you've violated their TOS or AUP they can do as they like with your personal data.
Add into that it appears there is a split in the vision between the two partners and one tried to blackmail a community to close a ticket...
AND the refusal to accept responsibility for anything DC after DC, Forum Threads, Customers etc.
Doesn't paint a great picture.
Please read again. It was the poor actions taken over the weekend.
@Jack of course
Nothing is the fault of IPXcore!
I don't really think you can interpret that into Adams words
I missed this originally; will you send me the name of the mod?
And i've had enough of cleaning up the other's mess. Hence why i'm looking at moving on.
Need a bit more info on this blackmail thing. Can anyone help a bit?
we cant make damian do what we want him to do. its his company. if we disagree with his views, the only thing we can do is not to patronize his services.
LET does not exist for the convenience of providers. He has no obligation to provide support here, or even to read this thread. This place is for commentary about LEB providers. IPXCore* is an LEB provider. You're basically asking for the mods to censor a thread because it makes a provider look bad. :P
*: What's with that name by the way? It makes it sound like their nodes run on Netware.
As I said before, LET is a place where customers share reviews and data about providers, whether they make it public or not, it concerns us.
It should not be a place where providers share info about users, even tho, such cases as ROKSO and the like can be discussed because are ALREADY in the public domain.
Providers can and are encouraged to share info about setups, popular plans, latest trends, ask community about how they feel about something and present their offers as long as they fit some criteria because they basically inform the community about it.
LET is not the provider's place, it is customer's place ! We rule here with the help of mods. Mods will rather moderate hosts than customers, will rather keep an eye on shady or irregular offers, they will keep an eye out for the truth and attempts to manipulate the market, at least this is how I see them now and they have my full vote for this.
Once the providers will understand this is not a place to judge customers, but a place to be judged, many things will become more clear.
M
well said M.