|
|
Posted by Dan Trainor on 03/01/05 16:53
Jochem Maas wrote:
> Hi Mikey,
>
> you writing is very balanced, nicely put... I very much
> agree with the position you take/have (maybe my OP didn't put
> it quite so clearly ;-)
>
> but you write that Dan probably agrees that (any) exploitation
> (that occurs) is a bad thing... a logical assumption.... now read
> this a weep (it a offlist reply from Dan to a reply of mine to his reply
> original reply to my OP), It really shows what a kind, caring guy Dan
> is:
>
>
> <quote>
> I do understand your points. Being in this industry, you're not the
> first person who I've met that dislikes the idea of what I do. There's
> nothing more that I can do aside from telling you to, well basically,
> fuck off. I see people like you on a daily basis, and unfortunately
> they confront me about the "situation". Most of the time I kindly just
> ignore them.
>
> I do what I do because I understand the market, the Webmasters, and the
> customers. I have a wonderful company. My employees like what they
> do. I like what I do. I love it. If you are trying to tell me that
> I'm a bad person for making a buck off of some slut who needs to pay
> rent for a month, then so be it. I don't care. I only host these sites
> and make sure that they stay online. I don't have to deal with any of
> the "models". I could give two shits and a giggle what they go
> through. It was their choice to result to pornography - not mine. I
> could, again, give two shits and a giggle what society thinks of them,
> myself, or my business. It would be silly and foolish to try to change
> the minds of anyone that has anything to do with this industry. The
> same level of foolishness that you are suggesting by telling me that I
> am a bad person...
>
> The best I can tell you is to ignore what you don't like, because your
> views, as extensive and expressive as they are, will always fall on deaf
> ears. I'm sorry.
>
> With that being said, I cannot continue this conversation. I would
> continue it if my time was worth it and you did not take an offensive
> manner to the situation.
>
> Good luck with your church.
>
> Thanks
> -dant
> </quote>
>
>
>
>
> Mikey wrote:
>
>> [snip everything irrelevant]
>>
>
> ...
>
>> think it makes them bad people. I also happen to know that not all
>> pr0n is
>> about exploitation. Some is, of course, and I'm sure that even Dan would
>> agree that this is not good - if anyone had bothered to find out in the
>> first place.
>
>
> ...
>
I don't think that this is an issue that is specific to pr0n. Sure, the
first thing that we think of when we hear a traded login is actually
pr0n, but it is most definately not limited to this arena.
I appreciate the kind words mentioned by Jochem and Mikey. They see
through the whole stereotypical "I have a username and password" thing
and understand the true technical reasoning behind my question.
To address Mikey's question - I am not looking for a way to uniquely
identify users. For one, it's just not possible. On top of that, the
vast majority of members with to stay anonymous for reasons that I am
not even going to begin to state on this list, because we all know where
that will end up.
I am trying to ensure that one login and one password are specific to
one client. Several methods of this include making sure that not more
than two IPs use a specific login/password throughout a pre-set
threshold, and on top of this, the automatic blocking of IPs that
attempt brute-force style attacks. These two items alone would be an
invaluable tool in the assurance that logins and passwords are not abused.
Thanks again
-dant
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|