Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
and as I said to you in the email, it is great that you are running a totally free VPN service with no money or income from it, so that if the customers don't pay you then you would have no way of stopping them from accessing it. ... or are you? On 9/07/2020 4:46 am, i...@fos-vpn.org wrote: All I would like from Spamhaus is to stop publishing fake SBL records in order to discredit us and to use that to put pressure both upon us and our upstreams. Non-logging VPN services are as legal within the EU as Exit Nodes of the Tor Network (which have massive abuse entries in various data bases, especially the larger ones) and public WiFi Hotspots, which can be used for abusive activities, too. I don't know who "PP" is (probably the same person which posts under the nickname "Petras Simeon" on Twitter and on various boards), but he contacted us and our upstream providers without telling his name, just using this email address: phishphuc...@storey.ovh and sending us the list of SBL entries which he also posted here. Don't know if he's working for Spamhaus or not, but before attacking others publicly, people should reveal their true identity, anything else would be sneaky in my opinion.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
If I found that any of your IP addresses is abusing my networks, I've the perfect right to black list your entire network and even more, make my decision public, so others can follow my advice. Specially if you don't take measures to log your network (despite is legally mandatory or not) and ensure that you don't have "bad" customers on it. This is perfectly legal. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 22:17, "anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de i...@fos-vpn.org" escribió: If Spamhaus lists our prefixes on EDROP it's their decision, we have to live with that, but they don't have the right to blacklist clean prefixes of hosting providers which host our service, because that is a form of punishment. Spamhaus is no legal entity and does therefore not have the right to do that. I don't say that all SBL entries are invalid, but some of them definitly are, because we have checked them. On 2020-07-08 22:00, Esa Laitinen wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020, 15:47 , wrote: > >> It is true that VPN services which don't log any user activities >> attract >> people with bad intentions and believe me: We are not happy about >> that >> either...but we have to live with that > > As per your own admission, you have to live with people abusing your > service, but it doesn't mean others have the same obligation. > > If you do serve people abusing your service by doing things warranting > spamhaus listing as per they policy, why should spamhaus stop listing > those IP addresses? By your own admission, the listing is correct. > > It is up to you to come up with a solution that will stop your users > abusing internet resources not belonging to you, and other intenet > users are not obligated to accept such abuse. > > As for extending the listing to cover the whole subnet, it is called > escalation. Look it up, it is explained in spamhauses web page. > > Yours, > > esa > > ps. to put it simply: you're entitled to send crap to the internet. > Others are entitled to refuse receiving it. ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
If you can demonstrate that those are fake reports, then you have a base for a court claim, even in Andorra. LEA has the responsibility to investigate and find the real people behind that. El 8/7/20 20:42, "anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de i...@fos-vpn.org" escribió: All I would like from Spamhaus is to stop publishing fake SBL records in order to discredit us and to use that to put pressure both upon us and our upstreams. Non-logging VPN services are as legal within the EU as Exit Nodes of the Tor Network (which have massive abuse entries in various data bases, especially the larger ones) and public WiFi Hotspots, which can be used for abusive activities, too. I don't know who "PP" is (probably the same person which posts under the nickname "Petras Simeon" on Twitter and on various boards), but he contacted us and our upstream providers without telling his name, just using this email address: phishphuc...@storey.ovh and sending us the list of SBL entries which he also posted here. Don't know if he's working for Spamhaus or not, but before attacking others publicly, people should reveal their true identity, anything else would be sneaky in my opinion. ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
If Spamhaus lists our prefixes on EDROP it's their decision, we have to live with that, but they don't have the right to blacklist clean prefixes of hosting providers which host our service, because that is a form of punishment. Spamhaus is no legal entity and does therefore not have the right to do that. I don't say that all SBL entries are invalid, but some of them definitly are, because we have checked them. On 2020-07-08 22:00, Esa Laitinen wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2020, 15:47 , wrote: It is true that VPN services which don't log any user activities attract people with bad intentions and believe me: We are not happy about that either...but we have to live with that As per your own admission, you have to live with people abusing your service, but it doesn't mean others have the same obligation. If you do serve people abusing your service by doing things warranting spamhaus listing as per they policy, why should spamhaus stop listing those IP addresses? By your own admission, the listing is correct. It is up to you to come up with a solution that will stop your users abusing internet resources not belonging to you, and other intenet users are not obligated to accept such abuse. As for extending the listing to cover the whole subnet, it is called escalation. Look it up, it is explained in spamhauses web page. Yours, esa ps. to put it simply: you're entitled to send crap to the internet. Others are entitled to refuse receiving it.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020, 15:47 , wrote: > > It is true that VPN services which don't log any user activities attract > people with bad intentions and believe me: We are not happy about that > either...but we have to live with that As per your own admission, you have to live with people abusing your service, but it doesn't mean others have the same obligation. If you do serve people abusing your service by doing things warranting spamhaus listing as per they policy, why should spamhaus stop listing those IP addresses? By your own admission, the listing is correct. It is up to you to come up with a solution that will stop your users abusing internet resources not belonging to you, and other intenet users are not obligated to accept such abuse. As for extending the listing to cover the whole subnet, it is called escalation. Look it up, it is explained in spamhauses web page. Yours, esa ps. to put it simply: you're entitled to send crap to the internet. Others are entitled to refuse receiving it.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
I would not be so quick in judging Spamhaus to be evil or even worse, illegal. We've encountered C2s (malware control server) which are pure evil and illegal in most countries but running over VPNs. Having a VPN service provider who claims not being able to stop service for the customer who is running C2, that I would say is not legal. Therefore, it's important to make sure we take care of our own services first before we look at what others do. KR Tonu CERT-EE On 08.07.2020 21:46, i...@fos-vpn.org wrote: > All I would like from Spamhaus is to stop publishing fake SBL records > in order to discredit us and to use that to put pressure both upon us > and our upstreams. > Non-logging VPN services are as legal within the EU as Exit Nodes of > the Tor Network (which have massive abuse entries in various data > bases, especially the larger ones) and public WiFi Hotspots, which can > be used for abusive activities, too. > > I don't know who "PP" is (probably the same person which posts under > the nickname "Petras Simeon" on Twitter and on various boards), but he > contacted us and our upstream providers without telling his name, just > using this email address: phishphuc...@storey.ovh and sending us the > list of SBL entries which he also posted here. > Don't know if he's working for Spamhaus or not, but before attacking > others publicly, people should reveal their true identity, anything > else would be sneaky in my opinion. >
[anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
All I would like from Spamhaus is to stop publishing fake SBL records in order to discredit us and to use that to put pressure both upon us and our upstreams. Non-logging VPN services are as legal within the EU as Exit Nodes of the Tor Network (which have massive abuse entries in various data bases, especially the larger ones) and public WiFi Hotspots, which can be used for abusive activities, too. I don't know who "PP" is (probably the same person which posts under the nickname "Petras Simeon" on Twitter and on various boards), but he contacted us and our upstream providers without telling his name, just using this email address: phishphuc...@storey.ovh and sending us the list of SBL entries which he also posted here. Don't know if he's working for Spamhaus or not, but before attacking others publicly, people should reveal their true identity, anything else would be sneaky in my opinion.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
dear info: > When you run a VPN service it simply lies in the nature of things that > some miscreants buy accounts which lead to various types of > complaints. > Our principle is not to serve the bad, but the good! reasonable. probably not easy to tell the good from the bad. > Our removal requests were all ignored by Spamhaus, refusing any > communication with us. such has not been my experience with them. quite responsive. > The problem with Spamhaus is that they can do whatever they want and > nearly everyone follows them. perhaps there is a reason so many use them. i.e. they run a useful service; and run it well enough. considering that, your story of attacking them does not do you credit, at least in my weak eyes. btw, the internet is a cooperation of a lot of folk who run their operations as they please. we try to get along and not step on eachother's toes. randy
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
If I'm listing /24s, instead of addresses, and I clearly state, "within this /24 the following IP addresses have been reported as abusers" and probably other information such as "they do not resolve the abuse cases/they are responding efficiently, etc.", I don't think there is anything wrong. The evil can be in the details, I fully agree, and is difficult to judge if not having "all" the complete set of data. If they are doing "bad things" on purpose or by negligence, even if they aren't disclosing the real identities, the courts, will take care of it in most of the jurisdictions. It will take more time, but this is normal with anything related to law ... unfortunately. By the way, I'm not defending them. I don't know them. Don't know who they are, but I could understand why they don't want to hide. I could tell several personal histories when I brought to Data Protection Agencies/courts several massive spam/abuse cases, and they really tried to do really bad things to me personally. You will be scared. There are real *criminal* organizations behind many "so-called" email marketing companies, spams, hijacks, etc. We all know. They happily will not care to kill anyone if you threaten them. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 17:49, "anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de i...@fos-vpn.org" escribió: @Jordi Palet Martinez: If Spamhaus would just list IP addresses we wouldn't mind that. The reality is different though. We brought a /24 prefix to a certain hosting provider which I don't want to name here and a few weeks after that Spamhaus listed the other clean prefixes of that company (which have no direct connection to our IPs) on SBL. The result was that all other customers were unable to sent any emails. The company had to refund them, resulting in a financial damage of more than 7000 Euros. There is no way to prevent this, because right after legal actions were taken in the United Kingdom by one of our upstream partners they moved their companys' headquarters to Andorra, which is outside the EU. Spamhaus is no legal entity, but they behave like one. They can do that because during recent years they gained an enormous power: Most email providers take their lists without any question, so if they want they can destroy an entire hosting provider, and if you want to take legal actions against them you need to find a law firm which is active in Andorra. Why don't they reveal their identities like BitNinja does in its imprint? Then all parties could present their evidence in court. ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: botnet controllers]
Not being a lawyer, maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think at least according the Spanish law, that if I anyone, a natural person, or an organization, provides a service to inform “who seems to be a spammer” or “what IP addresses or blocks” are frequently sending spam, if the natural person or the organization just keeps something to probe that there was spam or any other kind of abuse, is fine. Otherwise, all those web pages that have public information about BGP hijacking incidents, will be acting against the law as well. *how* you use that information to create filters for your servers, is *your* decision, not the organization providing that information source. Note that I fully understand your point, I can think on it as “they have a dominant position”. However, this is because they are trusted, not because they have got a government contract or anything like that to have it. If I start building a web page with all the spam, intrusion attempts, and other abuse cases that I receive in any of the networks that I care of, and cite in the web page all those companies that don’t care about those abuse cases, and across the years the community think “this is a valuable” service, let’s use it. AND I can keep the records of why I listed them. Do you think I’m doing anything illegal or wrong? Of course I will be doing something wrong if I list organizations with fake abuse reports, but not otherwise. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 16:47, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode" escribió: Jordi, Transparency and accountability are key for services that act like a combined privatised police, court and penal force. Unfortunately Spamhaus does not deliver in that department. While the service certainly has merit, they sometimes feels warranted to enforce policies that hurt legal and valid business models like unmanaged hosting and cloud services, vpn's or tor-exits just to name a few. Judge, Jury and Executioner are 3 distinct roles in western democraties, this is for a reason. As a lot of organisations use Spamhaus, this means they have a fudiciary obligation to have clearand targetted policies, a speedy and transparant complaints procedure and they need to provide some form of arbitrage, just to ensure personal issues and preferences are not a factor. To describe Spamhaus usage as "It is up to each individual or organization to use them or not." fundamentally mislabels their position in the abuse handling ecosystem. (it is a bit like arguing we have a working abuse@ mail address, but do not handle abuse at all) -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode On Wed, 08-07-2020 15h 08min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: In a couple of occasions (many years ago), some of the IPs under my responsibility, were listed at spamhaus. I contacted them and got delisted, no problem. Of course, after that I took measures so my IP addresses are never involved even by accident, in any "bad" activity: it is my duty. My conclusion is that it offers a good service, which I can use or not, it is my decision. I think services such as spamhaus are good, and I don't know if legally they need to be "registered". I could, as a natural person, so no need for registration if is not a business (no incomes), make this kind of service, for free, and for privacy reasons, and understanding that I may be damaging high-level criminal activities, seek my personal and family protection by not disclosing my real data. I don't think there is nothing wrong about that, because I'm not "forcing" anyone to trust my service or use it, or anything similar. It is up to each individual or organization to use them or not. If ISP a, b, and c, are abusing my network in any way, and I decide to create a public web page to list them, if I can keep the demonstration of that, there is no court that can tell me "you're doing something illegal". I'm just telling the world "those guys have abused my network, you can use it to filter them to avoid having the same trouble", and I can do that I an anonymous way. That said, I think it is a bad excuse to say that there is no login to protect freedom of speech. You can do login but not provide that data to "bad" governments. Only if your own country LEA ask for it, because there was a criminal activity on that connection you will need to provide the data. This is the same for *any* other service. I can't agree that VPN's are a different thing. Note that I'm not trying to say if this or that service is good or bad, but to say that rules are made for all. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
[anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
@Jordi Palet Martinez: If Spamhaus would just list IP addresses we wouldn't mind that. The reality is different though. We brought a /24 prefix to a certain hosting provider which I don't want to name here and a few weeks after that Spamhaus listed the other clean prefixes of that company (which have no direct connection to our IPs) on SBL. The result was that all other customers were unable to sent any emails. The company had to refund them, resulting in a financial damage of more than 7000 Euros. There is no way to prevent this, because right after legal actions were taken in the United Kingdom by one of our upstream partners they moved their companys' headquarters to Andorra, which is outside the EU. Spamhaus is no legal entity, but they behave like one. They can do that because during recent years they gained an enormous power: Most email providers take their lists without any question, so if they want they can destroy an entire hosting provider, and if you want to take legal actions against them you need to find a law firm which is active in Andorra. Why don't they reveal their identities like BitNinja does in its imprint? Then all parties could present their evidence in court.
[anti-abuse-wg] [Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: botnet controllers]
Jordi, Transparency and accountability are key for services that act like a combined privatised police, court and penal force. Unfortunately Spamhaus does not deliver in that department. While the service certainly has merit, they sometimes feels warranted to enforce policies that hurt legal and valid business models like unmanaged hosting and cloud services, vpn's or tor-exits just to name a few. Judge, Jury and Executioner are 3 distinct roles in western democraties, this is for a reason. As a lot of organisations use Spamhaus, this means they have a fudiciary obligation to have clearand targetted policies, a speedy and transparant complaints procedure and they need to provide some form of arbitrage, just to ensure personal issues and preferences are not a factor. To describe Spamhaus usage as "It is up to each individual or organization to use them or not." fundamentally mislabels their position in the abuse handling ecosystem. (it is a bit like arguing we have a working abuse@ mail address, but do not handle abuse at all) -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode On Wed, 08-07-2020 15h 08min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > In a couple of occasions (many years ago), some of the IPs under my responsibility, were listed at spamhaus. I contacted them and got delisted, no problem. Of course, after that I took measures so my IP addresses are never involved even by accident, in any "bad" activity: it is my duty. > > My conclusion is that it offers a good service, which I can use or not, it is > my decision. > > I think services such as spamhaus are good, and I don't know if legally they > need to be "registered". I could, as a natural person, so no need for > registration if is not a business (no incomes), make this kind of service, > for free, and for privacy reasons, and understanding that I may be damaging > high-level criminal activities, seek my personal and family protection by not > disclosing my real data. > > I don't think there is nothing wrong about that, because I'm not "forcing" > anyone to trust my service or use it, or anything similar. It is up to each > individual or organization to use them or not. > > If ISP a, b, and c, are abusing my network in any way, and I decide to create > a public web page to list them, if I can keep the demonstration of that, > there is no court that can tell me "you're doing something illegal". I'm just > telling the world "those guys have abused my network, you can use it to > filter them to avoid having the same trouble", and I can do that I an > anonymous way. > > That said, I think it is a bad excuse to say that there is no login to > protect freedom of speech. You can do login but not provide that data to > "bad" governments. Only if your own country LEA ask for it, because there was > a criminal activity on that connection you will need to provide the data. > This is the same for *any* other service. I can't agree that VPN's are a > different thing. > > Note that I'm not trying to say if this or that service is good or bad, but > to say that rules are made for all. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
In a couple of occasions (many years ago), some of the IPs under my responsibility, were listed at spamhaus. I contacted them and got delisted, no problem. Of course, after that I took measures so my IP addresses are never involved even by accident, in any "bad" activity: it is my duty. My conclusion is that it offers a good service, which I can use or not, it is my decision. I think services such as spamhaus are good, and I don't know if legally they need to be "registered". I could, as a natural person, so no need for registration if is not a business (no incomes), make this kind of service, for free, and for privacy reasons, and understanding that I may be damaging high-level criminal activities, seek my personal and family protection by not disclosing my real data. I don't think there is nothing wrong about that, because I'm not "forcing" anyone to trust my service or use it, or anything similar. It is up to each individual or organization to use them or not. If ISP a, b, and c, are abusing my network in any way, and I decide to create a public web page to list them, if I can keep the demonstration of that, there is no court that can tell me "you're doing something illegal". I'm just telling the world "those guys have abused my network, you can use it to filter them to avoid having the same trouble", and I can do that I an anonymous way. That said, I think it is a bad excuse to say that there is no login to protect freedom of speech. You can do login but not provide that data to "bad" governments. Only if your own country LEA ask for it, because there was a criminal activity on that connection you will need to provide the data. This is the same for *any* other service. I can't agree that VPN's are a different thing. Note that I'm not trying to say if this or that service is good or bad, but to say that rules are made for all. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/7/20 14:47, "anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de i...@fos-vpn.org" escribió: Please allow me to comment on this on behalf of the VPN services affected by the accusations: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/anti-abuse-wg/PDRhZGNmYmVmLTNmMmYtNjQ2ZC1iOTMzLWNhY2RkMDEyOGU0M0BzdG9yZXkub3ZoPg== When you run a VPN service it simply lies in the nature of things that some miscreants buy accounts which lead to various types of complaints. Our principle is not to serve the bad, but the good! We checked all SBL listings in the past and found out that most of them were simply invalid. Our removal requests were all ignored by Spamhaus, refusing any communication with us. The problem with Spamhaus is that they can do whatever they want and nearly everyone follows them. After starting legal actions in the UK against them based on their wrong accusations they moved their headquarters to Andorra, using the address of a hospital located there. Earlier on a person we know very well tried the same in Switzerland and found out that they are not even registered there; they just rented some offices from Regus in Geneva. Unlike other services such as BitNinja or Blocklist, Spamhaus has no real imprint on its website. All those names such as Thomas Morrison, Pete Dawes or Vincent Hanna are fake identities. Except a few insiders nobody knows who's behind that company, which claims to be nonprofit. It is true that VPN services which don't log any user activities attract people with bad intentions and believe me: We are not happy about that either...but we have to live with that. To us it seemed that it became a real passion of Mr. Steve Linford to destroy non-logging VPN providers; providers which are needed in countries like Iran or China to protect the freedom of speech (we have a lot of customers there). More than 90 per cent of all VPN providers don't allow any Port Forwarding, but closing all Ports would be a kind of censorship in our opinion. We do have our ToS which don't allow any misuse of our service, but we have no control over the actions of our users whatsoever. I know that most of you won't be satisfied with that answer, but this is how we see things from our perspective. ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
[anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: botnet controllers
Please allow me to comment on this on behalf of the VPN services affected by the accusations: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/anti-abuse-wg/PDRhZGNmYmVmLTNmMmYtNjQ2ZC1iOTMzLWNhY2RkMDEyOGU0M0BzdG9yZXkub3ZoPg== When you run a VPN service it simply lies in the nature of things that some miscreants buy accounts which lead to various types of complaints. Our principle is not to serve the bad, but the good! We checked all SBL listings in the past and found out that most of them were simply invalid. Our removal requests were all ignored by Spamhaus, refusing any communication with us. The problem with Spamhaus is that they can do whatever they want and nearly everyone follows them. After starting legal actions in the UK against them based on their wrong accusations they moved their headquarters to Andorra, using the address of a hospital located there. Earlier on a person we know very well tried the same in Switzerland and found out that they are not even registered there; they just rented some offices from Regus in Geneva. Unlike other services such as BitNinja or Blocklist, Spamhaus has no real imprint on its website. All those names such as Thomas Morrison, Pete Dawes or Vincent Hanna are fake identities. Except a few insiders nobody knows who's behind that company, which claims to be nonprofit. It is true that VPN services which don't log any user activities attract people with bad intentions and believe me: We are not happy about that either...but we have to live with that. To us it seemed that it became a real passion of Mr. Steve Linford to destroy non-logging VPN providers; providers which are needed in countries like Iran or China to protect the freedom of speech (we have a lot of customers there). More than 90 per cent of all VPN providers don't allow any Port Forwarding, but closing all Ports would be a kind of censorship in our opinion. We do have our ToS which don't allow any misuse of our service, but we have no control over the actions of our users whatsoever. I know that most of you won't be satisfied with that answer, but this is how we see things from our perspective.
