In article , "Rob Overfield" writes:

After having a word with the nice people at BT Internet as regards the flood
on Monday, I got this response today:

...
I have carried out an investigation into the posting you brought to my
attention and have taken action against our user to stop this happening
again.

I?m sorry to say, though, that I won?t be able to give you any more
information about the user in question.


Thanks for taking the trouble, Rob. I very much appreciate it.

We (in general, I mean, not specifically u.s.w) have a problem, it seems to
me, whereby an anti-social abuser of the Internet is blocked by one ISP, but
no further action is taken. The user is free to find other services which
serve his purpose. The abuser is protected by the Data Protection Act from
having any details published, unless a court order is issued, and then such
details can only be given to law enforcement authorities.

There are services which "accomodate" such abusers far more readily than
others, and permit spoofing of all header fields. Complaints often fall on
deaf ears, and jurisdiction is usually beyond national boundaries. The
victims have no recourse other than to attempt costly legal action, which
they very seldom do.

The law in this country is too far behind the capabilities of the technology.
It needs to be updated.

Cheers,

keith

My opinion of BT is quite low after they sent me a virus in 2001. I
informed
them of it and got no reply.

I *doubt* that that was BT, somehow.

Ever heard of WORMS?

D.

My opinion of BT is quite low after they sent me a virus in 2001. I
informed
them of it and got no reply.

I *doubt* that that was BT, somehow.

Ever heard of WORMS?

D.

My opinion of BT is quite low after they sent me a virus in 2001. I
informed
them of it and got no reply.

I *doubt* that that was BT, somehow.

Ever heard of WORMS?

D.

My opinion of BT is quite low after they sent me a virus in 2001. I
informed
them of it and got no reply.

I *doubt* that that was BT, somehow.

Ever heard of WORMS?

D.