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
Well least he has good taste... :P
It's not legal in some countries to transmit/distribute/download copyrighted materials, and as such the datacenters/providers can be held accountable if they just let it slide.
So What? When you start using our servers for illegal purposes, it becomes a provider's business.
@KuJoe
How can I contact you to discuss the paypal issue?
Also, had the whole ticket been posted, you all would see it was just a warning and asked him to remove the content himself. The VPS could have been powered back on through SolusVM at any time.
Open a Ticket
oh wait... lol.
Forget about it dude, you ain't getting the money back. And even if you open a paypal dispute against them, you're just going to alert paypal to your activity.
But if a provider is aware of such activity occurring, they can be held liable if they do nothing about it, course I imagine someone would just feign ignorance of such activity if caught.
Personally, if I catch it, it's not staying. Simply because there are worse things than a DMCA notice...
@Zen tell that to William and his 20 missing servers.
@kbeezie
I don't wish to get paypal involved. I would just like a response as to why I've been refunded $1. I don't see what the big deal is.
Of course you don't wish to get paypal involved, you'll lose the dispute and probably have your account locked if it's something you're normally caught doing.
@KuJoe
Should I just take this to paypal dispute since you are clearly not interested in getting this matter sorted as you've still not given me any contact details.
But they were private files
I just feel like, simply setting up a customer on their node, and then doing nothing after the fact is essentially just waiting until something happens to do something about it. I prefer to be in the camp of preventing such events from happening, not just illegal content but malicious use of VPSes etc. Would rather nip such abuse in the bud before the damage is done rather than after. I would think everyone else on the same node would appreciate that just as well
.
Myself (at IonVz for management) or other staff with VPSNodeBox of course respects the privacy of every customer and will not divulge their information/services/content to anyone outside of the company except in rare cases when a judge, warrant, government order or other activity warrants the need to report it. Proactive Monitoring and prevention isn't the same thing as privacy violation, and since it's not public space the usage of such a service is of course bound by the TOS/AUP (just in case people didn't quite understand that ... still).
How else do you expect some providers to provide 'quality', if they run their house in such a sloppy manner.
Should I just take this to paypal dispute since you are clearly not interested in getting this matter sorted as you've still not given me any contact details.
@kbeezie
Block usenet traffic perhaps?
@KuJoe already told you he wasn't going to be your lawyer for $1, so he gave you $1 to find a lawyer in your price range.
@kbeezie
The dispute will be why I have only been refunded $1 instead of the full amount. This has nothing to do with what I've been doing on the vps.
There are some legitimate forms of usenet traffic the same way that there are some forms of legitimate usage for Tor and Torrents (though some providers just flat out don't allow them), also it's not like usenet and other services operate on the same address/port so blocking them wouldn't do much good, generally speaking providers who block ports outright generally have lower customer satisfaction when it has an adverse effect on all the nodes. Makes more sense to do with shared hosting enviroments.
@miTgiB
Nice way to treat your future customers I suppose.
That's not what Paypal Disputes are for... and yes it has everything to do with the VPS, you paid for a service, the terms states no refunds if you are found to have violated the TOS. They need only link Paypal to their TOS/AUP and win the dispute.
@kbeezie
What does the TOS have to do with refunding me $1?
Good luck trying to get providers who know you here to try and host you.
Nothing to do with the value of refund, but simply their right not to give you a total refund. You're arguing for argument sakes and as a result making yourself look like a fool. They could have given you nothing back...
@HalfEatenPie
I would be interested to know what ones respect privacy, yes. I'll leave that for another thread.
@spycrab101 Problem is we don't want people like you as our customers. Have you not figured that out. You break the rules there are consequences. Get over it your not getting a refund. Your lucky to get a dollar. Do you know why KuJoe is not responding to you? He doesn't have to. He knows that your going to dig yourself a deep enough whole that it will collapse on you and he won't even have to fill it in.
You know, I often don't consider it in good taste to weigh in on disputes like this, because I realize that it can come off in an unintended way. However, I promised myself that I would always be a customer of the industry first and foremost. It's not like I'm some big shot provider or anything, just a little guy with an opinion.
I like @KuJoe, seems like a great guy. The complaints have been very few that I've seen, and I only say few because there has to be some, even if I can't recall a single one before this. This, however, disturbs me a little bit. I would send it to @KuJoe in a message but this discussion is public, relevant discussion that may influence other hosts and customers is made important by the content in this thread.
I scan for known scripts that have 0 purposes beyond DDOS or spam. This has a 0% chance of a false positive unless someone is toying with me on purpose. High chance of missing anything not on my list, but if it stops one it's justified. However, digging to the point of knowing that the client is watching Dexter (which I might also call the revealing of which to be in bad taste) without any complaints received bothers me a little. It's in his privacy policy, so it's justified for any client who signed up knowing this. I still consider it overkill and unusual to the point that I would suggest it should be highlighted a few more places to discourage any clients who value privacy from signing up. No excuse for not reading, but I'm surprised the policy itself hasn't generated huge complaints.
Needs to be stated again. No excuse for not reading. Complain about the policy, not your failure to read the policy.
I download Dexter.
I say this because I don't like this attitude here encouraging the idea that all providers should implement policies like this that specifically allows snooping. I can't understand why so many are so quick to defend that stance. Defend against the client for not reading policy, sure. But support the existence of the policy? I sure won't.
it was a mistake, please refund that $1 back
@netomx
okay.jpg
@jarland I do find it odd that if you had a client violating your terms of service that you wouldn't ask them to stop and give them a chance to remove the violation. You already stated you scan your clients files to find out if there are any bad ones. Can you advise me what the differenc is to you?
I absolutely would. But if they're not abusing physical resources or receiving complaints, I'm not going to know about it. If I am alerted to it I will deal with it. I won't go looking for it.
I don't read client log files. If you don't name a script "ddos.pl" you're basically safe.
He scans for DDoS scripts and similar bottom-drawer stuff.
You don't see the difference between clients performing DDoS and those downloading tv-shows from usenet?