Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

eFront From Inside

Posted by michael on Sat Mar 10, 2001 02:26 PM
from the hoist-by-their-own-petard dept.
Gridle writes: "In short, eFront was a company which bought out successful websites and turned them into cash cows by maximizing profit through different ways of banner and other advertising. Not a bad idea, except that their methods aren't exactly pretty ones. A disgruntled employee obtained some crucial ICQ logs (mirror), which show the true spirit behind eFront. It includes cheating on banner companies, cheating on top100 sites, talking about raping a female webmaster because she doesn't agree on some points, tax evasion, delaying payment to webmasters, literally harrassing sites out of existance and all kinds of other nasty stuff. Somebody put together a summary about how it concerns the emulation scene. Also notice OverClocked's comic about it and Tim Eckel's previous ventures against the emulation community, and Penny Arcade. And it's all over the place already. FuckedCompany, SomethingAwful, Lum the Mad (and their forums), Get High Forums, mame.dk support pages and Retrogames' General and Current Affairs boards. Somebody even found that their CEO has earlier been convicted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
eFront From Inside | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 200 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3
  • Re:some interesting news... okay...\ by lowtax (Score:2) Sunday March 11 2001, @10:03AM
  • some interesting news by djroute66 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @08:32PM
  • Re:Um by Yuri Nidyuut (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:45AM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by elegant7x (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @08:39PM
  • Funny by British (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:46AM
  • um.... no by elegant7x (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @08:44PM
  • Eckel must be pretty happy today by ortholattice (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:34PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by Zico (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:35PM
  • Now this is plain funny by F2F (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @03:21PM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by Keepiru (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:36PM
  • Re:No community by porky_pig_jr (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @03:22PM
  • Re:No community by Zico (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:37PM
  • Responding to the original log publisher (#209) .. by JoeGee (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @03:26PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:38PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by Gridle (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:39PM
  • Re:Um by Felinoid (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:42PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by Zico (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:46PM
  • Re:Something Awful by lowtax (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @10:07AM
  • grrr by gunner800 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:46AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by Mock (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @10:17AM
  • Re:hebus.com 's statement. by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @09:07PM
  • Re:is no one concerned? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:48AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by maggard (Score:2) Sunday March 11 2001, @11:42AM
  • Re:um.... no by Skwirl (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @09:20PM
  • by Chester K (145560) on Saturday March 10 2001, @10:49AM (#371918) Homepage
    A few months ago, eFront contacted me about buying my website, in exchange for some crazy stock option plan. I'm not a lawyer, but even I could see how out of whack their contract was. I mean, give them ALL rights and ownership to the site in exchange for stock that has no value, and has no real prospect of ever having any value?

    But, I suppose enough people are just interested in the prospect of making phat cash that they'll sign anything stuck in front of their face. These people getting screwed over by eFront are getting screwed over because they leapt into it with a lot of unfounded faith. Someone once said (I think it was George Carlin), "Businessmen go into meetings thinking the other guy is going to fuck them over, so they race to fuck the other guy over first."

    This type of thing happens in boardrooms all across the country, every day. It really isn't surprising that eFront is conspiring to screw their webmasters over, what is surprising is that they were stupid enough to do it over ICQ.
  • highlights by loraksus (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:49AM
  • Tim? by WiseWeasel (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @12:02PM
  • Banner cheating by JediTrainer (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:51AM
  • Re:some interesting news... okay...\ by joel_snider (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @12:48PM
  • Re:grrr by Mojojojo Monkey Inc. (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @09:24PM
  • explain please? by Lord Omlette (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @09:35PM
  • I like my job,sorry. by gabecw (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @03:35PM
  • Re:More links by truelight (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:51PM
  • Re:No community by po_boy (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @03:43PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by denshi (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:52PM
  • Note to self by BIGJIMSLATE (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:14AM
  • mod this guy up by Barbarian (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:57PM
  • Hmm.... by samrolken (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:14AM
  • Webmaster Speaks, Message #209 by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @03:50PM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by JoeGee (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:57PM
  • No community (Score:4)

    by NineNine (235196) on Saturday March 10 2001, @10:15AM (#371934) Homepage
    The reason that a company can get away with this stuff, even for a little while, is because there's no community of webmasters/website owners. In the world or pornsites, if somebody does something shady, everybody knows abot it right away, and that person is usually blacklisted and forced out of business.

  • Tell Sam how much you love his dialogs! by r. ghaffari (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:17AM
  • Hm by Enahs (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:17AM
  • Re:No community by porky_pig_jr (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:18AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by Fortyseven (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:10PM
  • Re:It don't take a Rocket Surgeon... by DavidTC (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @12:48PM
  • Re:Andover competitor? by danox (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @01:39PM
  • Re:some interesting news... okay...\ by djroute66 (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @05:03PM
  • Wait a sec... by Moonwick (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:56AM
  • Trial by /. ? (Score:4)

    by JoeGee (85189) on Saturday March 10 2001, @10:58AM (#371943)

    ICQ History Log For:
    12345678 SchmuckBoy
    Started on Tue April 32 25:43:47 2004

    SchmuckBoy 04/32/04 02:43:47 nm Did you read on /. about all the ICQ "logs" that were posted?

    leetkid 04/32/04 02:44:48 nm No, was it 'leet?

    SchmuckBoy 04/32/04 02:49:03 nm It took me a few days to write them all, but /. reposted them. This will teach that lamer to mess with me.

    leetkid 04/32/04 02:50:04 nm Sec, viewing them ... You wrote these???!!!

    SchmuckBoy 04/32/04 02:54:28 nm Sure I did. The people at Slashdot are not journalists so they did not bother to verify the facts, and I get away with smearing lameass publically, harming him and his reputation, and /. helped me do it.

    leetkid 04/32/04 02:56:19 nm You ARE the 'leetest one of all!

    SchmuckBoy 04/32/04 02:58:43 nm I wouldn't be without the help of /.


    Exactly why should anyone trust logs posted to a web site? Especially when someone's reputation is involved? How is /. not a party to libel if the allegations prove untrue?
  • Another mirror by mduell (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:00AM
  • Dang. Lost Karma here... by paranormalized (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:51PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by maggard (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @09:59PM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2001, @04:07PM (#371947)
    Kristy 02/03/20 1:23 pm
    by the way.. you have open file sharing on your computer on

    Kristy 02/03/20 1:23 pm
    which means someone can delete your hd

    Kristy 02/03/20 1:23 pm
    at anytime..

    Kristy 02/03/20 1:23 pm
    you might want to change that :P

    Kristy 02/03/20 1:27 pm
    but im not supposed to tell you

    Kristy 02/03/20 1:27 pm
    so dont tell anyone :P
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by maggard (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:07PM
  • Re:No community by SmokeSerpent (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:15PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by acceleriter (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:26PM
  • Re:explain please? by HeghmoH (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:40PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by raju1kabir (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:17PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by fougasse (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:20PM
  • Re:No community by Zico (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:21PM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by SnowDog_2112 (Score:2) Sunday March 11 2001, @11:42PM
  • by jmegq (33169) on Saturday March 10 2001, @11:02AM (#371956) Homepage
    The response to the eFront thing really amazes me. I'm not vindicating or defending them at all -- they did some nasty shit. But I do think someone has to raise the issue of the affiliate websites' participation.

    How on earth can you do business (and the ICQ log makes the excellent point that, once you bring money into the equation, it's no longer a hobby) - do business with another company and not know that their CEO has been convicted of fraud? Where's the due dilligence? ``What other companies are you working with? Can I talk to someone at some of your other affiliate sites?''

    How can someone host a site like mame.dk or somethingawful.com as anything but a hobby in their spare time? Pud seems to do just fine running FC that way (and appropriately makes fun of big companies that require 50 people to do the same thing). This isn't a troll - at least 50% of those reading this should know how easy it is to run a dynamic web site, and even to host it cheaply. But $24,000 a month!?

    If you're going to accept ad revenue as the way you pay rent, it seems like you need to be up on the ad industry and know what the CPM trends are. It also seems like you'd want a pretty good contract with your ad provider, so they can't just drop you if it's not working out. Especially after April, 2000.

    I don't mean to sound harsh, but I really can't see anything but greed as a motivation for the sites that have been hit by this; that and a sense of entitlement thwarted. I mean, I love PA, I really do, but I could host it on my (pretty modest) salary, in my spare time. What entitles someone to it as their job?

    -1, Flamebait I guess... though I really think these are important issues.

  • Re:They are not inadmissable by f5426 (Score:2) Monday March 12 2001, @12:22AM
  • Re:eFront sends out Cease and Desist letters.... by Chris Mattern (Score:1) Monday March 12 2001, @12:52AM
  • Re:Dang. Lost Karma here... by JoeGee (Score:1) Monday March 12 2001, @07:25AM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? (Score:5)

    by Gridle (17502) on Saturday March 10 2001, @11:07AM (#371960) Homepage
    For a change, would you please read the links too? Who the hell would invest two months of constant typing to create 12 MB of forged logs with authentic information, passwords, people, phone numbers et cetera, and what for?

    I have no reason to suspect the logs aren't real. Draw your own conclusions though.

    Also, ICQ's license agreement pretty much states that since they can't guarantee privacy, it's essentially a public forum. I guess eFront just fucked themselves.

    About the rape quote, grep rape from iBLAMEj00.txt. You'll find it easily. Perhaps it wasn't said with any intention to do it, but it still sticks at people's eyes and would be pretty much an open and shot case for this female webmaster's lawyers.
  • Re:I like my job,sorry. by Nexx (Score:1) Monday March 12 2001, @09:37AM
  • It don't take a Rocket Surgeon... by MeowMeow Jones (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:07AM
  • efront ceo seems caught with that demand letter by bataras (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:48PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by DavidTC (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:50PM
  • um by Kalani (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:33PM
  • COMPLETE eFront ICQ logs by HungarianNotation (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:30PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by DavidTC (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:53PM
  • Re:They are not inadmissable by mdw2 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:37PM
  • I submitted this one a while ago! by AFCArchvile (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:40PM
  • Interesting that .. by hygelic (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:37PM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by SnowDog_2112 (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:42PM
  • Re:Bandwidth by DavidTC (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @12:20AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by mizhi (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:38PM
  • Re:Nightmare for this guy. by donglekey (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:45PM
  • wow. by denshi (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:38PM
  • Re:Some relevant links & interesting information by donglekey (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @04:58PM
  • Re:is no one concerned? by Lord Omlette (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:41PM
  • Re:No community by gwalla (Score:1) Monday March 12 2001, @08:14PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by KitsuneMidori (Score:1) Tuesday March 13 2001, @03:34PM
  • Creative insulting by Felinoid (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:09AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by maggard (Score:2) Wednesday March 14 2001, @11:47AM
  • Re:eFront wanted to buy my website by chipuni (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:09AM
  • Re:No community (Score:5)

    by mav[LAG] (31387) on Saturday March 10 2001, @11:13AM (#371983)
    OTOH there is now a large community of pissed-off web site owners, emulator coders and cartoonists with a single purpose. It amazes me that people still try to discredit, annoy or rip off people on the Net with technical abilities. Like it or not the law is actually quite secondary in these cases. The more common reaction for annoyed techies is to go for the quick expose along with incriminating evidence and character assassination.

    Just as I think any kind of community spirit on the Net is gone, some little slimeball pops up and proves me wrong with the reaction he provokes.

  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by KitsuneMidori (Score:1) Wednesday March 14 2001, @08:35PM
  • Re:some interesting news... okay...\ by MrEricSir (Score:1) Thursday March 15 2001, @12:16PM
  • Odd name by Galazi (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:16AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia by MrEricSir (Score:1) Thursday March 15 2001, @12:20PM
  • Re:No community by Zico (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:40AM
  • Bandwidth. by NetJunkie (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:17AM
  • no, but.... (Score:3)

    by Illserve (56215) on Saturday March 10 2001, @11:18AM (#371990)
    If you ask me which is more likely: that a company with a bad reputation is actually a sleazeball operation, or someone sat down forged megabytes of ascii text icq logs, I'll go with the sleazeball. It's occams razor, plain and simple. Hell, it would be less effort to forge a .jpg of Ted Eckel shooting heroin in a crack house than write all this.

    If you want clear and incontrovertible proof, you're going to have to develop some kind of clairsentient abilities, because all evidence can be forged at some level.
  • Interesting quote from IRC... by B14ckH013Sur4 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:46AM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by jmegq (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:46AM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:49AM
  • Re:It don't take a Rocket Surgeon... by DavidTC (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @12:25AM
  • Re:I like my job,sorry. by DMaster0 (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @12:33AM
  • Re:I like my job,sorry. by owillis (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @01:04AM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by Rura Penthe (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @01:22AM
  • Re:eFront sends out Cease and Desist letters.... by elegant7x (Score:2) Sunday March 11 2001, @01:31AM
  • Ironic ........... and now the Efront fightback by fragism.com (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @05:09PM
  • Re:Pot, Kettle, Black? by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:44PM
  • by verbot (215901) on Saturday March 10 2001, @05:37PM (#372001)

    First, check out: http://www.fuckedcompany.com/extras/efront_letter. cfm [fuckedcompany.com]

    As you can see, eFront's "legal department" is sending out cease and desist letters to anyone who is hosting or linking to the ICQ logs. Wonder if Slashdot will be hit by one?

    If you have read the logs, you'll know that in a previous situation, eFront simply copied a cease and desist template off a web page to send. Look's like they've done it here as well.

    I like this comment made [fuckedcompany.com] by bored2 on Pud's website. He says:

    regarding the letter:

    * It's not signed by a person (but was sent by email? what was the email address in the relevant headers?) A lawyer would sign his/her name. or perhaps the current efront legal dept. consists of Sam in his boxers and a google search for cease and desist letters.

    * It starts: "We are contacting you on behalf of eFront Media ("Company")." Umm, but I thought this letter was from eFront? Sam is obviously using a letter from a law firm writing on behalf of a client w/o having changed the relevant parts of the letter.

    * "The unauthorized break-in and continued distribution and dissemination of this data violates the Federal wiretapping ***statues***."

    With no citation to the relevant "statues".

    * "The FBI office of Orange County is currently investigating"

    There is a LA and San Diego division offices of the FBI; there is no office called the "Orange County Office." See: http://losangeles.fbi.gov/contact/fo/la/territory. htm

    The rest of the letter is just crap, especially: "In addition, we are requesting that you shut down the entire forum for Efront, due to the criminal investigation and the illegal actions that have been conducted with the reading and gathering of such materials."

    What is that last clause supposed to mean?

    How pathetic.
  • by cheshire_cqx (175259) on Saturday March 10 2001, @01:45PM (#372002)

    I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. In a civil action, people don't "file charges." Only a government prosecutor can "file charges"--or more accurately seek an indictment by grand jury or by information with a preliminary hearing in front of a magistrate. Your points might apply if you were talking about ethical violations relating to prejudicial pretrial pubilicity by the government (state prosecutors or Fed. Assistant U.S. Attorneys). Similarly, innocent until proven guilty is a criminal concept; civil plaintiffs have the burden of proof/pursuasion (with a "more likely than not" standard).

    Re. defamation, remember that truth is a defense. Stated another way, you can only defame someone with false statements. Second, some matters of public interest are covered by a qualified, constitutional privilige established by the Spreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. With a public figure or matter of public controversy, a plaintiff must often prove "actual malice," meaning not "spite or ill will" but that the defendant had "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth," but nevertheless published the statement(s). However, if the plaintiff is a private person and has not injected him/herself into a public controversy, then the plaintiff only needs to prove that the defendant was negligent in publishing the defamatory material.

    With a private person & private controversy, usually negligence means falling below what a reasonable person or reasonable publisher would have done under the same circumstances.

    There are other torts that might apply, however, like invasion of privacy.

    One interesting question is whether obtaining the logs violated the Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.

    Re. admissibility, pre-publication or not keeping something a secret has no bearing. All relevant evidence not otherwise inadmissible comes in. "Relevant" usually means "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable". An easy standard. Some possible grounds for inadmissibility:

    • Authentication. Under Rule of Evidence 901, there must be authentication or identification of what the evidence is and that it's genuine. This can be, e.g., by a person with personal knowledge, by expert testimony, or that the method or process was accurate.
    • Heresay. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the rules. Heresay is a statement made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted. However, it is not heresay if the statement was made by a "party opponent," that is the person you are suing or being sued by. There are other qualifications and exclusions (see Fed. Rules of Evidence 801-806).

    In all, electronic records are viewed by the majority of courts to be no better and no worse than any other kind of evidence.

    ---
    In a hundred-mile march,

  • Re:is no one concerned? by Lord Omlette (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:46PM
  • Re:No community by NineNine (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:47PM
  • Just how did s/he get these logs? by Faust7 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @05:50PM
  • EFront CEO is a pervert ... by HungarianNotation (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:52PM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by cheshire_cqx (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:53PM
  • Propaganda 101! by lucidish (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:55PM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by SnowDog_2112 (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:19AM
  • Re:Another mirror by mduell (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:23AM
  • (-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by Frac (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:23AM
  • Re:Andover competitor? by Felinoid (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:26AM
  • Sam Jain is on the right. by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:27AM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by JoeGee (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:52AM
  • Some relevant links & interesting information by stil (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:28AM
  • Re:eFront wanted to buy my website by quickquack (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:53AM
  • Re:Tell Sam how much you love his dialogs! by loraksus (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:29AM
  • hebus.com 's statement. by aftershave1 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:56AM
  • by Argy (95352) on Saturday March 10 2001, @11:56AM (#372019)
    The "in short" version seems a little too short, for those of us who have never heard of eFront. And the log files are many, many times the length of War and Peace. So I apologize for not having read the entire "article" before commenting. But the charges seem a little stupid to me...buying web sites to make more money back is not a crime! Do the log files actually state doing something illegal, or is this just whimpering from eFront's competitors?

    The "summary" link above is vaguely written, with nothing clearly stated to be illegal. It's more like it's written to *sound* illegal. "Screw the affiliates by lowering the CPM from $3 to $.75"...does that mean in actual breach of contract, or does it mean renegotiate the monthly pay rate? There's a big difference! Ad rates change all the time.

    Bragging about "tricking" people into clicking ads (in the summary link), sorry, that sucks, but within certain bounds, that's part of web advertising today. You see tricky banners on CNN and most other major web sites too, like "click the monkey to win" and so on.

    Bragging about "pop-ups and how he can do whatever he wants to his visitors," again, if this is just a gripe about unsolicited pop-up ads, they suck, but have become mainstream practice these days. I'd say most of the major media web sites I visit pop up ad consoles at different times.

    "He frequently berates his visitors, at one point calling them 'sheep', He brags about his own 'leetness.'" Yadda yadda yadda. I'm sorry, if the whole issue is that this guy is a ruthless profit-seeker you wouldn't want to be friends with, it just seems like a lot of personal griping. Okay, maybe he's an asshole, but so what?

    Again, I haven't read the 15 megabytes of log files, so I'm not saying for sure this is just a lot of name-calling, but if there are specific allegations of fraud, it would be interesting to have them summarized with more details and credibility than the "summary" link in the initial posting.
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by eric434 (Score:1) Saturday March 17 2001, @05:26PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by morgan_wr (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:58AM
  • Re:Andover competitor? by terrymah (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:00PM
  • Re:Andover competitor? by Fishstick (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @04:51AM
  • Um by Fervent (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:19AM
  • Re: by Ithil (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @05:57PM
  • Re:No community by ConceptJunkie (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @05:57PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by Fishstick (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @05:11AM
  • by torpor (458) <jayv.synth@net> on Saturday March 10 2001, @10:20AM (#372029) Homepage Journal
    Wow, seriously dangerous waters you guys at /. are venturing into.

    It could be argued, pretty easily, that this article is a competitive swipe against EFront, who seem to have a relatively similar business strategy to another "Buy-And-Milk" company, your very own Andover Networks.

    I hope this doesn't cause more fuss than it should. Be stupid to see /. get embroiled in the very things it purports to be rallying the community against ...
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by cymen (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @01:56PM
  • Re:Bandwidth by Trumpet (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @05:18AM
  • Re:Creative insulting by Gaijinator (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:31PM
  • Re:Um by Gridle (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:21AM
  • Re:hosted in Taiwan? I think not by cymen (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:00PM
  • Perhaps the saddest thing about all this, IMHO... by Carter Butts (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:34PM
  • Re:Propaganda 101! by lucidish (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:01PM
  • hosted in Taiwan? I think not by Mock (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:23AM
  • everything node by donglekey (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:34PM
  • Re:No community by po_boy (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:05PM
  • lack of cred all around by Forgotten (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:38PM
  • Re:No community by Yuri Nidyuut (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:42PM
  • by D'Arque Bishop (84624) on Saturday March 10 2001, @02:07PM (#372042)
    See those ICQ logs that were posted? Don't you think that's a horrific invasion of privacy? What right have you to complain about Carnivore snooping on you if it's ok for other people to invade people's privacy, even if you don't like the victims?

    Well, I will be the first to admit that I haven't read some of the articles, so I have no idea how the logs were acquired, but based on what I know so far, the answer would be no.

    Why, you ask? It's quite simple: I take the attitude that anything transmitted via ICQ and logged is no longer private. AFAIK, ICQ themselves take that attitude. It's like when people complain about me posting IRC logs: stuff said is, IMHO, public domain, especially if on a channel itself.

    If the person whose logs were posted wants to complain, maybe he should consider that this could have been avoided had he used something that DIDN'T log his words. :p Or even better, not been such an ass in the first place...

  • Vulnerability of ICQ logs, etc (offtopic) by The OPTiCIAN (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:13PM
  • Nightmare for this guy. by loraksus (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:32AM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:33AM
  • by kstumpf (218897) on Saturday March 10 2001, @11:36AM (#372046)
    So Slashdot editors should censor topics based on that? I doubt it. Wouldn't MSNBC report on CBS News doing something illegal?
  • Re:Bandwidth by jmegq (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:37AM
  • PA seems to be getting Slashdotted... by Westacular (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:38AM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by Fortyseven (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:06PM
  • Wait... privacy issue anyone? by Felinoid (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:09PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @11:38AM
  • Something Awful by Fistgrrl (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:12PM
  • Re:Wait a sec... by dangermouse (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:13PM
  • Re:Something Awful by Fistgrrl (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:15PM
  • Re:PA seems to be getting Slashdotted... by kaldari (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @06:57AM
  • Re:Now this is plain funny by lewp (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:49PM
  • That kind of whining is sooo Fortyseven. by BiOFH (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:50PM
  • Re:Bandwidth by jmegq (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:21AM
  • Re:EFront CEO is a pervert ... by lewp (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:52PM
  • Re:is no one concerned? by HeghmoH (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @06:58PM
  • Billyborg by Robber Baron (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:34AM
  • Re:Bandwidth by jmegq (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:25AM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by jmegq (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:31AM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? "THIS IS ONLY A MOCK EXCERPT." by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @07:02PM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by jmegq (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:35AM
  • mame.dk down by gmhowell (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @07:09PM
  • by sharkey (16670) on Sunday March 11 2001, @08:37AM (#372067)
    I think I saw a large , bronze wire-spool outside the Federal building in Indy. Perhaps that's the statue they were violating?

    --
  • by Lord Omlette (124579) on Saturday March 10 2001, @10:38AM (#372068) Homepage
    See those ICQ logs that were posted? Don't you think that's a horrific invasion of privacy? What right have you to complain about Carnivore snooping on you if it's ok for other people to invade people's privacy, even if you don't like the victims? Fight fire with water, not fire people, please.
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057
  • Re:Pot, Kettle, Black? by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @07:15PM
  • Re:Just how did s/he get these logs? by British (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @07:16PM
  • Re:It don't take a Rocket Surgeon... by cymen (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:15PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? "THIS IS ONLY A MOCK EXCERPT." by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:21PM
  • Re:(-1, read the 12 megabyte logs) by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:24PM
  • Re:They are not inadmissable by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:27PM
  • Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily. by eric434 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:27PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by Nemo2342 (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:23PM
  • Whoops.. (Score:5)

    by drwiii (434) on Saturday March 10 2001, @12:25PM (#372077)
    Looks like someone can't take criticism [cjb.net]..

    • Trying 64.156.174.76...
      Connected to arcadeathome.efront.com.
      Escape character is '^]'.
      GET / HTTP/1.0
      Referer: http://mamedk.cjb.net/

      HTTP/1.1 302 Found
      Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:21:20 GMT
      Server: Apache/1.3.12
      X-Powered-By: PHP/4.0.3pl1
      Location: http://goatse.cx/
      Connection: close
      Content-Type: text/html
  • Re:PA seems to be getting Slashdotted... by HamNRye (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:34PM
  • Re:It don't take a Rocket Surgeon... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:25PM
  • Re:Bandwidth. by Felinoid (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:26PM
  • Re:They are not inadmissable by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @02:44PM
  • Re:Just a l33t flame war? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:29PM
  • Re:Definately important. by Fortyseven (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:30PM
  • Re:They are not inadmissable by JoeGee (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @12:33PM
  • Re:I like my job,sorry. by gabecw (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:38AM
  • Re:eFront wanted to buy my website by Repvblic (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:41AM
  • Re:Something Awful by dollars (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @08:52AM
  • Re:Umm... so why go with eFront? by kstumpf (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @09:05AM
  • Who isn't a bit worried about this? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @10:40AM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by JoeGee (Score:1) Saturday March 10 2001, @07:24PM
  • Re:Just a l33t flame war? by crucini (Score:2) Saturday March 10 2001, @07:40PM
  • Re:Trial by /. ? by matthewquinn (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @09:23AM
  • Re:No community by SmokeSerpent (Score:1) Sunday March 11 2001, @09:27AM
(1) | 2 | 3