No subject


Fri Jun 12 11:19:36 PDT 2009


the team that has to deal with abuse reports...

So, this isn't about just chat, it's about PRIVATE chat (IM's, not local
chat, for which no encryption is being used) in combination with an AR.
Hence, at least three people are involved:

A) someone sending an encrypted message to B.
B) someone receiving the encrypted message from A.
C) someone sending an Abuse Report related to this PRIVATE message.

Lets analyse this:

1) C != A and C != B.  Then how the hell did C know about the private
   message in the first place? Aparently, the private message is
   *assumed* (by LL) to contain proof that the abuse really happened.
   But clearly it is out-of-band (a private message between A and B
   has nothing directly to do with whatever can bother C). Hence,
   their frustration is ungrounded.
   EVEN if we assume for a moment that this private communication
   would contain proof, than demanding NOT to use encryption won't
   solve anything, because A and B can use any other channel for
   this: voice, skype, IRC, etc.

2) C == A or C == B. Tell C not to use encryption or not to send ARs.
   If an abuse related to private chat cannot be verified because
   C willingly is using encryption, then what is the problem?
   The frustration of the 'support' team? Hahaha.

Imho, the real solution to this problem is a re-education of the
support team on how to deal with this, and how to not get frustrated
about it.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>


More information about the SLDev mailing list