IRC networks

Post everything else here

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, Other/Off Topic Moderators

Trakitroki

IRC networks

Postby Trakitroki » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:56 am

How is the Efnet IRC network different from the other IRC network and how are they both related to the Wikipedia IRC network?
evil
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:18 pm

Postby evil » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:10 am

Is this a trick question?
groop
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:17 am
Location: eaton, ohio
Contact:

Postby groop » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:14 am

For starters, EFNet is one of the original IRC Networks out there. We offer more stable, faster connections for our users than most other Networks. Actualy, most of the larger networks provide stable and fast servers, but being one of the originals.. it put's us in a league of it's own. We don't offer any nick/chan services for the mere fact that we're a free-of-dictatorship Network. We run our own channels, without outside interference. (depending on any situation that arises). As for comparing us to the other Network you're mentioning, i haven't a clue.. but it sound's like the difference is, We don't offer dictionarys for spelling purposes while online. <insert humur> :lol:
auth {
user = "cpe-24-209-1??-?.woh.res.rr.com";
password = "asifiwould";
spoof = "unable.to.resolve";
flags = no_tilde;
class = "users";
};
Trakitroki

Postby Trakitroki » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:21 am

Not a trick question. Just curious about the differences in these networks for the purposes of resolving the answer to the next question which is: are sexual predators able to use this network without identifying themselves like the other chat networks?
groop
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:17 am
Location: eaton, ohio
Contact:

Postby groop » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:31 am

Anyone has access to our Network without being filtered for their criminal background. Most /MOTD(s) state this. Our Network doesn't monitor actual people connecting to the server's nor do they monitor the traffic/content in which flows through it, unless they have violated a server/network policy. The only scan for abuse is one's against the Network, Not for their own personal agenda's.
auth {

user = "cpe-24-209-1??-?.woh.res.rr.com";

password = "asifiwould";

spoof = "unable.to.resolve";

flags = no_tilde;

class = "users";

};
Trakitroki

Postby Trakitroki » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:47 am

Since Dateline in particular has focused on chat rooms and groups as a source of people it has been able to entice to come to a specific locations in search of illegal sex do you think the need to filter chat server users on the basis of their criminal record is now justified and would reduce violation of the law and the bad rep chat servers are now getting?
groop
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:17 am
Location: eaton, ohio
Contact:

Postby groop » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:12 am

Please consider the fact that EFNet is an UNmoderated chat network. As stated, Our /MOTD(s) clearly state that we do not monitor any traffic/content passing through our servers. It would be nearly impossible to check every single person connecting to our network, as thousands connect a day. Our service's are free to anyone who hasn't abused our Network/Server policy's. The /MOTD(s) clearly state you chat at your own risk and that they're NOT responsible for the actions of any one individual. We're a chat medium, a connection for users to to the EFNet network. We're not a billboard service such as AOL where members must identify themselves to the service. I recommend, Finding a Network with user registration for starters, where the Network does get involved with a user on an individual basis. EFNet doesn't offer this, so i really don't think our network would be one for someone like you, who insists on checking/scanning/ users on a one by one basis. :)
auth {

user = "cpe-24-209-1??-?.woh.res.rr.com";

password = "asifiwould";

spoof = "unable.to.resolve";

flags = no_tilde;

class = "users";

};
Trakitroki

Postby Trakitroki » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:45 am

I am not advocating a manual one by one identification and offender filter code checking system since they are easily automated. I am merely gathering information as to the current thinking chat networks maintain in regard to such matters and whether or not such a system is possible to implement on a voluntary basis. I dare say that the government could easily enough implement any kind of filter system it desired including the ban of such networks which did not employ such a filter system. As for my own use I am not concerned so much as for children who like to explore every nook and cranny that the Internet has to offer without any supervision or requirement to present an ID that would permit filtering on the basis of their age, if for no other reason than to reduce the amount of broadcast time that is taken up by Dateline and other programs. My guess is that unfiltered IRC networks will be the first to see overly restrictive legislation that would make even Heinrich Himmler blush.
groop
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:17 am
Location: eaton, ohio
Contact:

Postby groop » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:01 pm

I'll let an Admin handle this, from here on out.. They're better equiped to answer. good luck!
auth {

user = "cpe-24-209-1??-?.woh.res.rr.com";

password = "asifiwould";

spoof = "unable.to.resolve";

flags = no_tilde;

class = "users";

};
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:10 pm

with an uptime of just over 9 days, we have seen 138189 successful logins (on our server only), and 4.3 million rejected logins (either because of server bans, or the user not authing properly). so yes, a manual check of who is connecting is impossible.

even requiring users to register before loging in is useless, as information can be faked. we aren't going to be collecting credit card numbers to confirm age before allowing users to chat.

as far as government restricting unmoderated chat mediums, the world is not china. EFnet is a global network of servers, the US government (or EU government) cannot moderate the entire network, and any such attempt at moderation would be in violation of most countries constitutions. even if they tried, it would be nearly unenforcable and entirely impractical.

if you do start moderating the network, it creates a problem of liability. if a sex offender slips through the moderation and harms someone, should the admins of EFnet be held responsible? is there a government oversight organization that monitors user registrations on the chat mediums? if it's a US law, what about EU and Asian chatters? would they have to register with a US goverment organization to chat with other EU users on the networK?

requiring user registration and network moderation is a technical fix for a social problem. if you want to keep your kids away from sex offenders, then monitor what your kids are doing, teach them about online predators, or don't allow them on chat networks. a computer is not a baby sitter, parenting is a full time job, etc, etc.
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
Trakitroki

Postby Trakitroki » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:40 pm

Unfortunately many parents have to work in order to pay the bills and simply do not have the time available to provide sufficient supervision. For this reason they expect the government to help and the government has long since helped by setting and maintaining standards for the broadcast industry. We know for a fact that the reason Congress did not initially institute restrictive legislation was to give the Internet a fast start but are beginning to feel the heat from parents who are not being helped with policing the Internet that is even remotely close to the policing of the broadcast industry they have come to enjoy. I know better than to stand in the way of parents even if I think they are wrong. While the world Internet might not be possible to shut down even in China due to the portability of wireless nodes, etc. government has the power to adversly effect communication of any kind whether you want to admit it or not and could gain absolute control if it had a reason. The question is whether or not parents feel that government has a reason since they represent the greatest majority of tax paying citizens. I would not put myself against the will and needs of parents if I wanted to survive.
User avatar
orange1
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:51 pm
Contact:

Postby orange1 » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:02 pm

They expect the government to help them do day to day monitoring of their children's activities? If the parents are working, the kids should be in school or have a babysitter. If they're old enough to stay home without a sitter, and you still don't trust them, then make sure you have some of that new-fangled parenting software that restricts internet access. Firewall the machine to only allow access to HTTP, block known bad sites, et cetera. Or, don't give them their own computer. Give them access to the family computer, but restrict their login to certain times of day.
Comparing the Internet to broadcast television is ludicrous. Do you want to require individual to pay large sums of money to the FCC in order to set up a website so that they can be regulated? You'll have to redesign the HTTP protocol, and all others, to have some kind of broadcast flag. That's not going to stop me from buying hosting service in the Netherlands, though. Unless all lines are physically cut to the rest of the world, the Internet will be free, and it will be the parents' job, god forbid, to raise their kids. Insisting the government should do it for them is just lazy.
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:18 pm

I think you're reacting to the recent myspace crap that's going on, correct? There are a few major differences between a site like myspace and an IRC network.

1) Myspace is... well, myspace. One website based in the US, and, arguably, subject to US laws. EFnet is maintained by numerous servers across the globe.

2) Myspace makes money. IRC is run by volunteers.

3) Myspace is owned by people.

Let's say someone is on my server and talking to someone on irc.efnet.ru. If something comes out of the conversation that could possibly precipitate a lawsuit, who gets sued? The University of Michigan? The people that run efnet.ru? What about the hub servers that connected the network? A better question - under whose laws is this suit viable?

As one of the few parents on the board (although, I know another poster in this thread will be joining that group in a few months!), there's no way in hell I want the government to tell me what my kid(s) can and can't do.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net
Trakitroki

Postby Trakitroki » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:47 pm

1.) Its the other way around. Parents are telling the government what they want the government to do to protect their kids.
2.) The Mafia has tried (and unfortunately succeeded in many cases) to thwart international law enforcement efforts by operating onboard ships at sea and by border hoping and straddling. The Mafia as you may well know is still in business today. Many laws have not yet been adopted universally by the International community. The issue is that IRC networks now have the choice of which side of the law they want to be on but may loose the opportunity to make the right choice later on. Its really that simple.

(in response to the comment made by Sasha louise below)

Such a response in any court of law would probably be regarded as your inability to know the difference between right and wrong. As for IRC responsibility for content that is not the issue. The issue is the need for official identification which can be used to look up criminal records by the system automatically as a means of filtering out sex offenders and sexual predators which even hard working parents can not do.
Last edited by Trakitroki on Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pills
Forum Admin
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:14 pm
Location: Long Island, NY
Contact:

Postby Pills » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:10 pm

Casidy wrote:1.) Its the other way around. Parents are telling the government what they want the government to do to protect their kids.
2.) The Mafia has tried (and unfortunately succeeded in many cases) to thwart international law enforcement efforts by operating onboard ships at sea and by border hoping and straddling. The Mafia as you may well know is still in business today. Many laws have not yet been adopted universally by the International community. The issue is that IRC networks now have the choice of which side of the law they want to be on but may loose the opportunity to make the right choice later on. Its really that simple.


1) That's because some parents are lazy asses who, quite frankly, shouldn't be parents.

2) Which side of whose law? There's no way we can monitor content, nor be responsible for it. If any court ever ruled that IRC is responsible for its content, you wouldn't see any large IRC networks anymore.
admin, irc.umich.edu
oper, irc.servercentral.net

Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest