Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Abusive Customer - Notification to Other Hosts - Page 7
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.

Abusive Customer - Notification to Other Hosts

1457910

Comments

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited April 2013

    @jarland heh, no one here like ddos but those extreme situations used in argument will be always easy way to justify whatever you do in return, correct? Is there anything else what can be used as justification to share around informations collected on your site? What about proper route to reporting criminal acts to authorities then?

    Anyway, that's your privacy policy "Information collected on this site is strictly for our use, NO OTHER OUTSIDE PERSONS MAY VIEW YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS BILLING INFORMATION, ETC." and yet, as you said (I know only this what you said without details) you share personal informations collected on your site with random non related unknown people over internet. Oh, it's your right to do this wherever you find it suitable disregarding your own privacy policy. Why is then such privacy policy here at all? Cosmetical detail to make your website more beautiful?

    edit. added few parts right after posted

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited April 2013

    @Spirit said: but those extreme situations used in argument will be always easy way to justify whatever you do in return, correct?

    No, it's the reality. It's not an extreme situation. It's the reality of why I'll post a report.

    @Spirit said: What about proper route to reporting criminial acts to authorities then?

    If they become a problem for me a second time, this is exactly what will happen and I make that very clear to them. I file a report with FraudRecord if I feel that they might do this again using some of the same information, and I hold on to the evidence of their identity and actions to submit to the authorities should they ever look my way again. This is the deal that I cut with them. If I feel that they won't be doing this again, I will subtract the FraudRecord step.

    @Spirit said: Anyway, that's your privacy policy

    Null and void in such a case where agreed upon by both parties. This doesn't need to be specified in my privacy policy. I have as much evidence of agreeing to nullify the policy as I do agreeing to it in the beginning. Don't like it? Sue me. Bring the best lawyer money can buy. I'm far more prepared than you think. The person with the motivation to do so will be the one to go down in court. That's not hubris, that's a guarantee.

    @Spirit said: NO OTHER OUTSIDE PERSONS MAY VIEW YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS BILLING INFORMATION, ETC

    Tell me how this isn't still true. Come on, do it. No one can read any information they don't already have. If you have it, I'm not sharing it. If you don't have it, I'm not sharing it. I am not sharing anyone's private information with any third party. MD5 hash loses actual data. It is not present in the hash. It merely confirms or denies a match in information without actually passing the information. I still don't think you understand what this means. If you don't understand the technical side of it, you are not equipped to speak against it.

  • I'm not refusing. I've spent many hours on WHT explaining my answers to that question. All I've seen is people fixate without trying to understand. I'm not going to indulge yet another random guy only to see my explantion get ignored. I explained the hashing mechanism, are you convinced? I don't trust that you are ready to understand me, so I'm not moving on to other issues. Prove me that people understand the technical security of the system, and I'll gladly move on to the next question.

  • @Harzem I think I found a wierd bug. If you create someone from scratch and there is no ip, you automatically get a person with interserver reports of fraud.

  • @24khost said: @Harzem I think I found a wierd bug. If you create someone from scratch and there is no ip, you automatically get a person with interserver reports of fraud.

    It's a harmless bug. I've reported it here:

    http://www.fraudrecord.com/forums/index.php?topic=59.0

  • ahhh thanks @Damian. Yes but when it turns up next to somebody you trust you scratch your head.

  • DamianDamian Member
    edited April 2013

    @Spirit: Please tell me who this is: https://www.fraudrecord.com/api/?showreport=72c4db32978b4ea8

    I'll accept any identifying information on them as being proof that anyone can get personal information from the Fraudrecord website.

    I will then pay this individual $5,000 USD for misusing their personal information.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @MrAndroid said: But shovehost is good.

    I don't know about shovehost, but I'm raking in huge bucks with ShoveAds.

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited April 2013

    @Damian said: I'll accept any identifying information on them as being proof that anyone can get personal information from the Fraudrecord website.

    Huh? How can I know? Do I look to you like a guy who collect people's personal information, such as billing information, etc? I am just a client of "few" hosts here and nothing more than that as you most likely know.
    btw. I hope that you reported this guy to autorities in case such abuse really happened.

    @Spirit said: "anyone just by knowing a few details about me can search for details and get results, which also gives them more details about me and what I did."

    quoted from: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8453857&postcount=72

    I think that you're mistakenly replying to this quote, correct? Which part is incorrect or you disagree with?

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @Spirit said: which also gives them more details about me

    Incorrect.

    @Spirit said: what I did

    Correct. Does anyone here have a privacy policy that covers specifically the actions which violate the AUP?

    Also see:

    @jarland said: MD5 hash loses actual data. It is not present in the hash. It merely confirms or denies a match in information without actually passing the information.

  • @Spirit said: Spirit said: "anyone just by knowing a few details about me can search for details and get results, which also gives them more details about me and what I did."

    quoted from: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8453857&postcount=72

    I think that you're mistakenly replying to this quote, correct? Which part is incorrect or you disagree with?

    But why would anyone care to search for you, if they knew a few details about you?

  • @Damian said: But why would anyone care to search for you, if they knew a few details about you?

    Irrelevant question.

  • DamianDamian Member
    edited April 2013

    @jarland said: Does anyone here have a privacy policy that covers specifically the actions which violate the AUP?

    Yalp, from http://ipxcore.com/privacy-policy/ :

    Exceptions to this policy may also be made in the event that we’re required to access a subscriber’s service or data in order to investigate or resolve a support incident. We will always ask for explicit permission before doing this, however in the event that we’re investigating a reported violation of our terms of service or acceptable use policy, our engineers may have to directly access your data. We will always contact you with exact details on what we’re investigating.
    

    It's intentionally vague. The issue can be fundamentally avoided with a pivotal mantra: don't do things you shouldn't. So far, we haven't had to use it.

  • DamianDamian Member
    edited April 2013

    @Spirit said: Irrelevant question.

    Good point, let's expand it further:

    But why would anyone care to search for you, or anyone else on the planet, if they knew a few details about them?

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @Spirit said: Irrelevant question.

    Very relevant. Otherwise, why is it worth discussing?

  • @jarland said: Very relevant. Otherwise, why is it worth discussing?

    I think it's only irrelephant because it fubars his argument.

    image

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited April 2013

    No @jarland it's completely irrelevant and you know it. Most of hosts here firstly claimed that no datas are shared. When it came out completely valid argument that "anyone just by knowing a few details about me can search for details and get results, which also gives them more details about me and what I did." you're starting with completely trivial arguments. I am pretty sure that you can do it better than @damian ;-)

  • I continue to not discount "anyone just by knowing a few details about me can search for details and get results, which also gives them more details about me and what I did."

    I only ask how/why it matters.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited April 2013

    @Spirit said: it's completely irrelevant and you know it

    Do I? I happen to think it's absolutely relevant. If there's no use for it, there's no use in crying about it.

    @Spirit said: Most of hosts here firstly claimed that no datas are shared.

    Right, because there isn't. MD5 hash is not your private data. Find in my privacy policy where a mathematically generated hash using your name and e-mail address are protected.

    @Spirit said: anyone just by knowing a few details about me can search for details and get results

    Why does this matter? Are you giving these details to just anyone? Anyone who has these details has already been entrusted with these details, or has benefited from your misplaced trust in someone else. You control that, not me.

    @Spirit said: which also gives them more details about me

    WRONG. That is a flat out lie which you have posted at least twice and been corrected on.

  • MrAndroidMrAndroid Member
    edited April 2013

    I think this conversation is going round in circles. You are never going to agree on anything, so you might as well agree to disagree.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    @MrAndroid said: I know this conversation is going round in circles.

    Fixed that for you :P

  • @jarland said: MD5 hash is not your private data. Find in my privacy policy where a mathematically generated hash using your name and e-mail address are protected.

    You're incorrect here. Hashed data still contains personal information and now it seems more like you try to justify sharing of those informations with others disregarding your privacy policy.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited April 2013

    @Spirit said: now it seems more like you try to justify sharing of those informations with others disregarding your privacy policy.

    No offense but you're clearly not actually reading, but rather beating a dead horse, as I told you in plain text that I do not share this hash unless the privacy policy has been nullified by agreement anyway.

    @Spirit said: Hashed data still contains personal information

    You are factually wrong. A hash is NOT the data. This isn't a matter of opinion. You cannot decide that a motherboard is now a fairy and it is so because you said so. Troll elsewhere. I will not accept criticism of my business from someone who doesn't understand how computers operate. Please open a ticket if you have any further issues with how I operate.

    I like you, but you're just going in circles, refusing to read counter arguments, refusing to educate yourself on the technology, and criticizing business practices and creating legal opinions on which you have no basis other than the uneducated opinions that you cling to.

  • Thing is @Spirit it is a one way hash. Unless you took the time to decode it, Probably take years. It is fairly safe.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited April 2013

    @24khost said: Unless you took the time to decode it, Probably take years. It is fairly safe.

    A hash isn't the data though.

    Read, @Spirit, HASHING IS NOT ENCRYPTION.

  • @Spirit do you own a super computer?? if not niether do most people the time taken to get the information out of those 4 hashes is gonna be ridiculous.

  • MunMun Member

    quick question, has this thread been derailed?

  • SpiritSpirit Member
    edited April 2013

    @jarland said: A hash is NOT the data. This isn't a matter of opinion.

    The Data Sharing Code Of Pratice states this:

    What do we mean by ‘data sharing’?

    By ‘data sharing’ we mean the disclosure of data from one or more

    organisations to a third party organisation or organisations, or the
    sharing of data between different parts of an organisation. Data
    sharing can take the form of:

    a reciprocal exchange of data;

    one or more organisations providing data to a third party or
    parties;

    several organisations pooling information and making it available
    to each other;

    several organisations pooling information and making it available
    to a third party or parties;

    exceptional, one-off disclosures of data in unexpected or
    emergency situations; or

    different parts of the same organisation making data available to
    each other.

    http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/data_sharing_code_of_practice.ashx

    And you're doing exactly this when you report someone to this third party database. Oh, and now start with "I am not from UK"... heh.

  • vRozenSch00nvRozenSch00n Member
    edited April 2013

    @Mun most likely

Sign In or Register to comment.