Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 161 to 186 of 186
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by BurstJoeM View Post
    Since it appears the purpose of your response to educate folks on the proper forensic technic used in cloning a harddrive, I think a more detailed response is necessary.

    In order to ensure that the contents of the harddrive are protected from damage and that the forensic examiner is protected from accusations such as tampering, the disk must be accessed using a forensic disk controller or at minimum a hardware write-block device. One of the purposes of this is to ensure that timestamps (e.g. boot, configuration files, data) are not modified, potentially throwing the chain of custody into question.

    Once cloning is complete, the original drive/s are sealed and not touched again until they are needed for a 2nd examination (e.g. mount a potential defense, turn over to law enforcement).

    If you going to come here, join this debate, and then correct people, the least you could do is provide useful information.
    Googled it up finally, did you? And yet, you initially raised doubt about there being any way to do this. I merely corrected your assumption. I do not see it as my duty to train you personally.

    So basically now you agree that technically it was entirely possible to let the customer have access to his data? Glad to hear that.

    Mind you, forensics were nowhere probably involved. Not once did Burstnet say that the server and the harddisk had actually been taken by the feds. If the owner was actually doing anything illegal, shouldn't he be behind bars by now, like burstnet seemed to imply?

    No one said they should not have complied with law enforcement requests. But they definitely went beyond what they were asked to do. And that too without any reasonable notice(so that at least the person had a chance to get latest backup done).

    If you wish to support an ISP that overreacts and starts froth off the mouth on even routine legal checkups, that waves the ToC around instead of following basic business ethics(like letting a customer at least have access to his data), that is entirely your choice.

    I note that ToC is more important to you than customer satisfaction and basic business ethics. Good luck with that.
      0 Not allowed!

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by danclough View Post
    What the hell is it with people coming in here comparing this to an apartment? You all fail to understand - apartment tenants have legal protections to prevent immediate evictions from happening. WEBHOSTING HAS NO SUCH LAWS.

    By the way, Blogetery does not own that server so your obligatory car analogy also does not apply. If you have a rental car and you took it to the rental lot for some service, and the police came and told them you've got 50 kilos of cocaine sitting in the back, I have a very good feeling that they would take back their car.

    I think you should go back to /. and join the rest of your tinfoil hat buddies. By the way, when you get back to Slashdot, kick kdawson where it hurts for me.
    Dude. There is the basic principle of justice and all that, that is *supposed* to be behind laws. And I am not talking about tenant protection. That was an analogy. I am merely asking you whether you think it is ok for B, C and D to be punished for something A did? Simple enough for now I hope?

    If I was your neighbour/tenant and doing something illegal that you had no inkling about, is it okay for police to arrest *you* or for you to be kicked out of your house? That is the analogy, if it has not filtered through.

    Why does Burstnet think that site owner have any liability about something some xyz posted without his knowledge or approval? One of their representatives implied the same thing tho. "He has bigger problems now than worry about getting his data back from us".

    If for example, burstjoem or pavix posted some childporn/terrorism link here (which is against the website rules obviously) that was not immediately noticed, will you find it fair that *you* got arrested as well just because you are posting here too? Will site owners hold themselves liable for spreading terrorism, merely because some strange person came and posted whatever for a bit, before they could remove it?

    As for the car analogy, I never equated the server to the car. I equated the data with the car. I am not sure, why you are so confused. The owner merely wants access to his data. Blogetry won't let him. He asked the contact of law enforcement that has ordered prevention of access. Burstnet started making strange excuses about not being allowed to do so, and threatening the customer with dire consequences. All this, when even burstnet itself says that law enforcement did not actually ask them to deny the owner access to the data.

    And mind you, we have NO proof that law enforcement was actually involved. We have just burstnet's story that asks us to take their word.

    What is to stop an ISP from making up fake law enforcement request stories just to cover up their liability in case of data loss?
      0 Not allowed!

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by hostingguy12 View Post
    I would have to agree with you on this. I do not believe this is BustNet's fault either. I also agree with the fact that if Blogetery was doing some illegal things with there server any other blog on the server is guilty by association.
    So basically, if someone else posts something illegal here, you are guilty by association as well, just because you post here too?

    It would not have been Burstnet's fault if they had merely complied with any law enforcement requests and no more. But they had to go above and beyond that. And they did not even really comply with the request properly, in the first place, as per their own admission.

    They even have the right to voluntarily terminate their contract with any customer, after refunding him. Nobody is disputing that. But they are expected to provide enough notice to at least allow the customer to backup his latest data. That at least is basic business ethics. If they had done so, they would be in much less trouble in media over this.
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by hostnwb View Post
    Can someone please clarify to me if BurstNET terminated all the sites or servers for that ONE owner who apparently had illegal content, or did they mistakenly terminate sites involving people that had no connection to this issue?

    I tried reading the posts I couldn't comprehend this mess. If the former, why are people whining about it?
    Apparently one or two blogs possibly had some illegal content. Law enforcement apparently simply asked burstnet about the contact details of the person hosting the service.

    Burstnet then proceeded to shut down the entire server without any actual prior warning, including the blogs of 70,000 people who had nothing to do with the issue, and more importantly, even denied the access to latest data backup to the owner.
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by GCM View Post
    BurstNET isn't under any obligation to give anything back. Their TOS/AUP was violated and so was American Law, you cannot support Terrorism unless you want to be in a Federal Prison all your life. We are all human, we make mistakes, deal with it!

    I highly doubt BurstNET's goal was to ruin the guy's blogging server. They are just not interested in supporting Terrorist, nobody is here in the United States. How exactly are they indefensible? They are protecting their assets and lives.

    Awesome, great to know your defenition of "unreliable" being abiding the law. If there were no laws in place the world be in chaos.

    /My 2 cents.
    First, how is the site owner responsible for something some random stranger posted in one of the 70,000 odd blogs on his site, without knowledge or encouragement of the owner?

    Last I checked, running a blogging service is not illegal. Google and Microsoft and lots of other companies are doing so. No person in their right mind would assume they were supporting terrorism by doing so.

    From what I can gather, there are only two possibilities. One, they loss his data and cooked up a terrorism story to cover their behind. Because once you raise the terrorism card, you can find enough sheeps to support you, and can get away with anything("It is national security. Don't ask us anything!"

    Or two. They actually received a legal inquiry, got paranoid and decided to cover their behind by dropping the customer without any prior notice. But since he went and complained here, they chose to actually harass him by intentionally denying him his data and painting him as terrorism himself.

    Either is inexcusable.
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    429
    I agree with abhisri.

    Burstnet should have warned the customer and allowed him to take action against his client within a reasonable time frame. (or)

    Silently given the info to Law Enforcement and allowed them to deal with the customer.

    Policing 73,000 blogs for content is no joke. It is impractical to expect any one to do this.

    The best would have been to alert the customer that there is a blog with objectionable content and ask the customer to take action - the customer could have given the necessary info to law enforcement.

    Burstnet either of this. Instead, they took law into their own hands and disconnected the client. This is not the correct thing to do at all.

    I wonder whether all the US hosts are so paranoid that they behave in this stupid fashion.

    Shame on Burstnet.

    I am GLAD I do not have a server in the US.
    "For I know the plans I have for you" declares our Lord Jesus Christ, "they are plans to prosper you, to give you a hope and a future and not to destroy you." - Jeremiah 29:11
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    429
    Also the fact that Burstnet has not given the data back to the customer is terrible. Yes the customer should have had backups. But Burstnet should have given the customer the data back. That is the most ethical thing to do.

    Let the customer take the data and host elsewhere. Burstnet has no right to hold the customer's data hostage.

    Shame on BURSTNET.
    "For I know the plans I have for you" declares our Lord Jesus Christ, "they are plans to prosper you, to give you a hope and a future and not to destroy you." - Jeremiah 29:11
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by abhisri View Post
    From what I can gather, there are only two possibilities. One, they loss his data and cooked up a terrorism story to cover their behind.
    Fact of the matter is, we have a ToS and AUP that every customer agrees to upon ordering:

    * You must RESPOND to all complaints within a clearly defined time frame or risk being suspended or terminated
    * You must provide a 24x7 point of contact
    * You are responsible for your own backups

    By Blogetery.com own admission, whether here on WHT, in the media, or in responses to our tickets:

    * He tried his best to respond to complaints within the window, however did not always do so. Twice this required a 2nd notice. The last abuse notification (before the FBI notice) he received (April) resulted in a suspension lasting over 3 days (Any of the angry blog owners wish to comment?).
    * His excuse to us for the April suspension was that he was on a snowboarding trip and missed the repeated alerts. This time (as reported by the NY Times) he was on a camping trip. This does not suit our 24x7 contact requirement.
    * If he truly cared for his users, why did he not implement a backup plan? Especially after he was suspended in April? Another interesting note, he had two tickets open for a HD replacement at the beginning of April. I would assume he had some sort of backup then.

    His data is fully intact. We have every intention of returning it to him and are in the process of working out the details.

    Here is a question for WHT users, based on the following what would you have done differently?

    We received an emergency request for contact information for the siteís owner from the FBI on July 9th. The letter claims links to content containing a hit list and instruction/tips on making bombs. The letter states we may choose to terminate the URLs. You verify that the links exist. So, now what?

    This is what we did:

    We immediately reviewed the servers history. We checked to see if we had a support password and could gain access to server. In this case, no, we donít have access. Even if we could, can you imagine the ruckus if the media and freedom of speech folks had found out the BurstNET was selectively editing peoples blogs? We then looked at his abuse history and saw that he has a history of not responding in a timely fashion. Due to the seriousness of the matter this leads us to an our next conundrum, do we simply issue an abuse notification to him and hope he responds or run the risk that he will not. Based on his own admission to the media, and the fact he didnít respond to the termination notice until July 11th (he states the 12th), he would in fact not respond. So what then? Leave the server online? What is the potential liability to BurstNET and ultimately our other customers if in fact someone acted upon the hit list?

    Now as far as the data goes, we were waiting for clarification on a couple of things. One being what is the legality of BurstNET knowingly allowing the transfer of potentially illegal content. Not just terrorist, but copyrighted material. Two, since there was some confusion as to the FBIís letter, could we even give him access to this data? If this was the beginning of a criminal investigation, what kind of issues would this create? Also, since we only had examples of pages with the links and no shell access to the server, how would we know ď73000Ē blogs are hosted here?

    It was Blogetery.comís choice to go public via webhosting talk not ours. When he finally responded to the termination notice, his 1st response was:

    <NAME REMOVED>
    07-11-2010 - 11:04PM I will start new thread on WHT about unacceptable service if you will not put server back online, and will not let me transfer it to another hosting.

    As has been stated on WHT numerous times, we will not be bullied. Blogetery.comís behavior and disregard for our TOS/AUP not only put us at risk, but also every one of our other customers who do make the effort to respond and manage their servers in a professional manner.

    We will provide blogetery.com access to his data within the next 36 hours.
    Joe Marr
    BurstNet Technologies, Inc.
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #169
    1st: I tried to resolve the situation privately with your support/abuse team for few days, then I went public.

    2nd: Apparently you lied to me that server was shut down by the order of law enforcement officials.
    Last edited by affiliateplex; 07-22-2010 at 11:58 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,487
    I think burst.net did a fine job at handling this and if at anytime I need a budget dedicated server they would be my choice.

    Providers have done much worse but it is less known due to the fact that it was not posted on major news
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #171
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    ē
    Posts
    785
    Well thats good that the guy finally gets his data back.
    But it seems its the negative publicity, and not bursts good service that made this happen.

    What copyrighted material are you talking about?
    The previous abuse complaint in april was resolved, so as far as you are aware there is no more copyrighted material on his server.

    The FBI requested that you not inform the customer, that seems pretty clear that they just wanted the information, not to disrupt the customers activity.

    AFAIK there is no law prohibiting possession or distribution of bomb making instructions, its easily found through google and you can buy books on it in book stores.
    There is also no law about possession/distribution of death threat letters, only the person who made the threat committed a crime.
    High Quality Web Hosting from Host Ultra
    Visit us online at www.hostultra.com
      0 Not allowed!

  12. #172
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by BurstJoeM View Post
    His data is fully intact. We have every intention of returning it to him and are in the process of working out the details.

    Here is a question for WHT users, based on the following what would you have done differently?

    We received an emergency request for contact information for the site’s owner from the FBI on July 9th. The letter claims links to content containing a hit list and instruction/tips on making bombs. The letter states we may choose to terminate the URLs. You verify that the links exist. So, now what?
    My reasoning would be this.

    Did FBI request that an action take place within a very short time frame (let's say 24 hours) or it was up to you to remove it in reasonable time?

    Checking those URLs, are those blog posts OLD? If they're several days old it would be obvious that if those messages were intended to reach someone then they probably already reached that person so it's no urgency.

    Check the client history, does he reply relatively fast to emails or not, does he have history of not replying in short time.

    If FBI requests immediat action, less than 24 hours, I'd remove the network cable from the server or firewall it, notify the client of this and connect KVMoIP to sort it out (well, maybe only if client had history of replying fast to emails and collaborating well).

    If no immediate action is required, then if client is usually responsive I would email him explaining the situation and give him 12-24 hours to reply and fix the issue.
    If client not responsive, I would try to give him a call and at the same time email his with request to answer in 4-8 hours or his server would be disconnected from the net.

    If I'd choose to no longer keep him as client, I would firewall the server and request from him one IP that would be allowed to connect to the server so that he can transfer his data within 1-3 days.

    I believe none of these actions were forbidden by FBI based on what I've read in this thread.
      0 Not allowed!

  13. #173
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    ē
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by mariushm View Post
    Did FBI request that an action take place within a very short time frame (let's say 24 hours) or it was up to you to remove it in reasonable time?
    It was posted a few pages back, the FBI did not request the site be taken down, they only wanted the server owners contact information, along with a notice saying not to inform the customer.

    Burst took it upon themselves to take down the server, against the FBI's request to not inform the customer.
    High Quality Web Hosting from Host Ultra
    Visit us online at www.hostultra.com
      0 Not allowed!

  14. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    I'm personally kinda divided on the issue. On one hand I think someone maybe panicked and could have over-reacted due to the letter being from the FBI rather than a standard civilan report. On the other hand, the server and network belongs to Burst and it is their call what is deemed worthy of a server shutdown or not.

    Burst made the call, as it is their right to do so. I really do feel for the customer since a large blog service is hard to monitor and keep track of, but certainly cant sit here and rag on Burst for a call that was every bit their right to make.
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,063
    Burst went overboard on this and reacted very poorly based on this guy being a "bad customer". What a piss poor attitude, and how seemingly appropriate coming from Burst. Issues like this should be responded to of their own accord, in fact I think that you opened yourself to potential harm by taking action that alerted the user to the FBI investigation while they were in the evidence gathering stage. I would think that something like this could be construed as impeding an ongoing investigation.

    You reacted emotionally to this situation, you should have simply complied with the request and let it run it's course, of course you should have also taken extra precautions to ensure that other customers were safe from a possible seizure but that is just part of being a service provider and you have to take the bad with the good otherwise you are cherry picking customers. Whats wrong with cherry picking customers? Ask all the unmetered hosts that went out of business because their removed people who actually tried to utilize their service thus destroying their reputations.
      0 Not allowed!

  16. #176
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    56
    @BurstNET:

    I have been using your service for more than 6 years now. I understand that you had to take the server offline immediately but why didn't you do the following:

    - Suspend the server immediately.
    - Give the client SSH access but keep everything else blocked via firewall (maybe limiting access to his IP range).
    - After client deletes the links bring the server back online but cancel regularly with 14 days due notice.

    Perfect solution for you. Happy FBI, slightly pissed of yet not too angry customer and nobody could acuse you of anything here.
      0 Not allowed!

  17. #177
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Under The Floor Tiles
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by hostinginsiders View Post
    Perfect solution for you. Happy FBI, slightly pissed of yet not too angry customer and nobody could acuse you of anything here.
    From a technical standpoint it would be impossible for Burst to limit access only to the customer's IP, since they don't know where he is or what IP he would access it from.

    Additionally, it's not enough to just cut off HTTP access. Somebody might access it via FTP or SSH and get the instructions that way.

    And it seems that even though Burst has posted a full and complete explanation with all their reasoning and logical steps documented, people are still failing to read that and keep asking the same questions over and over. I have a strange feeling that a lot of people in this thread started out feeling sorry for the client, but now are just out to get BurstNET for whatever they can.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    "When a man begins to doubt himself, he does something incredibly stupid and thereby is reassured."
    ::http://www.dustytech.net/:: Personal Website
      0 Not allowed!

  18. #178
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by danclough View Post
    From a technical standpoint it would be impossible for Burst to limit access only to the customer's IP, since they don't know where he is or what IP he would access it from.
    How about... BurstNET providing the backup on another IP?

    Quote Originally Posted by danclough View Post
    Additionally, it's not enough to just cut off HTTP access. Somebody might access it via FTP or SSH and get the instructions that way.
    Nice to see you're exploring all possibilities, but that's abit far fetched for a blog site.

    Quote Originally Posted by danclough View Post
    And it seems that even though Burst has posted a full and complete explanation with all their reasoning and logical steps documented, people are still failing to read that and keep asking the same questions over and over. I have a strange feeling that a lot of people in this thread started out feeling sorry for the client, but now are just out to get BurstNET for whatever they can.
    It would help if BurstNET didn't have a poor reputation in the first place.
    Granted, they are a budget provider (which they often bring up as justification for their attitudes).

    So here's a newsflash: you get what you pay for (and vice versa).
    Seems like there's a good number of people who don't like BurstNET's handling of customers and issues, and the solution is simple: avoid them.
    For the rest, they can settle with BurstNET till they can afford better or face the brunt of BurstNET's attitudes.
      0 Not allowed!

  19. #179
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Host Ultra View Post

    The FBI requested that you not inform the customer, that seems pretty clear that they just wanted the information, not to disrupt the customers activity.
    Correct, they did not ask us. We admitted a mistake was made. This was the first time we had seen this particular request. It was identified incorrectly in our system and we communicated it incorrectly to blogetery.com. We've updated our policy and procedures and We've apologized for the mistake. However, given the clients documented history of violating our TOS/AUP, and the seriousness of information contained in the request we choose to terminate.

    At the very least, had Blogetery.com not been previously suspended we would have simply suspended him this time.
    Joe Marr
    BurstNet Technologies, Inc.
      0 Not allowed!

  20. #180
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave - Just199 View Post
    Burst went overboard on this and reacted very poorly based on this guy being a "bad customer". What a piss poor attitude, and how seemingly appropriate coming from Burst. Issues like this should be responded to of their own accord, in fact I think that you opened yourself to potential harm by taking action that alerted the user to the FBI investigation while they were in the evidence gathering stage. I would think that something like this could be construed as impeding an ongoing investigation.
    You honestly don't think we might have checked with them before releasing a statement or speaking with the media?
    Joe Marr
    BurstNet Technologies, Inc.
      0 Not allowed!

  21. #181
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by danclough View Post
    Additionally, it's not enough to just cut off HTTP access. Somebody might access it via FTP or SSH and get the instructions that way.
    Unless new information has surfaced, what was posted to the server was a link - not the actual information. Burst's official statement specifically says "link."
    Andrew Borntreger
    Champion of Cinematic Disasters
    The Bad Movie Website
    www.badmovies.org
      0 Not allowed!

  22. #182
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Huntersville, NC
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by mariushm View Post
    My reasoning would be this.

    Did FBI request that an action take place within a very short time frame (let's say 24 hours) or it was up to you to remove it in reasonable time?

    Checking those URLs, are those blog posts OLD? If they're several days old it would be obvious that if those messages were intended to reach someone then they probably already reached that person so it's no urgency.

    Check the client history, does he reply relatively fast to emails or not, does he have history of not replying in short time.

    If FBI requests immediat action, less than 24 hours, I'd remove the network cable from the server or firewall it, notify the client of this and connect KVMoIP to sort it out (well, maybe only if client had history of replying fast to emails and collaborating well).

    If no immediate action is required, then if client is usually responsive I would email him explaining the situation and give him 12-24 hours to reply and fix the issue.
    If client not responsive, I would try to give him a call and at the same time email his with request to answer in 4-8 hours or his server would be disconnected from the net.

    If I'd choose to no longer keep him as client, I would firewall the server and request from him one IP that would be allowed to connect to the server so that he can transfer his data within 1-3 days.

    I believe none of these actions were forbidden by FBI based on what I've read in this thread.
    Your points are valid and acceptable.

    This user (he can claim what he wants, we have email and ticket system logs) had a history of not responding withing 24 hours. His last abuse resulted in him being suspended for over 3 days, add the 48 hours we give before suspension, and thats over 5 days between notfication and his action. With his history, we chose to terminate.
    Joe Marr
    BurstNet Technologies, Inc.
      0 Not allowed!

  23. #183
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,036
    Okay. Let's review this again (for hopefully the last time) and state the facts (and leave out all the conspiracy jibber-jabber):


    • Blogetery.com has a history of DMCA complaints and his last issue left him down for 4 days due to his camping/snowboarding (depending on if he was telling us or the media).
    • We receive a letter from the FBI asking for information related to Terrorist threats (hit-list) and bomb-making
    • We reviewed the history of the server, and coupled with the egregious extent of the present violation of our TOS, and coupled with the history of the server, we decided to pull the server. We left blogetery.com's owners other servers online and working. NOTE: At this point we were unaware that this was a free blogging server, nor were we aware of how many users there are/were. We still do not have proof of that, by the way, as even with all this media attention, there seems to be only three people claiming to be bloggers on Blogetery.com and having any issues with what has transpired.
    • When Blogetery.com contacted us, an employee misunderstood the full history outlined above and did tell them that the server was shut down by Law Enforcement Officials. This was incorrect and admitted to already. At no point during his conversations with us did Blogetery.com allude to THOUSANDS of customers being affected.
    • As outlined by our CTO, we are working on getting Blogetery.com's owner his data back, but we are researching all legal ramifications before doing so (In response to Host Ultra's question about what copyrighted material: There may be more than has been found, and we need to make sure legally we are not aiding and abetting distribution of any copyrighted material)

    Again, and finally, we chose to take down the server, per our TOS. We do not like abusive servers in our data centers, take a hard stand on abusers, and handled this server no differently than we have the hundreds of servers we've pulled before or the hundreds we will pull in the future. Our AUP and TOS are clearly defined and every customer MUST agree to them before getting any service with us.

    If anyone has an issue with how we handle our abuse, we ask you to read our AUP and TOS before signing up with us.
    Last edited by BurstNET_CSM; 07-22-2010 at 01:52 PM. Reason: typos
      0 Not allowed!

  24. #184
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by BurstNET_CSM View Post
    Again, and finally, we chose to take down the server, per our TOS. We do not like abusive servers in our data centers, take a hard stand on abusers, and handled this server no differently than we have the hundreds of servers we've pulled before or the hundreds we will pull in the future. Our AUP and TOS are clearly defined and every customer MUST agree to them before getting any service with us
    In this specific case where the FBI and Al Quaeda are involved I can not blame you for your decision. But in general I think it is very important to make a difference between long term reseller customers and a quick fraudster who pays you with a stolen credit card. In the second case you can cancel the server right away. But in the first case I think the preferable method is a suspension, giving the customer a chance to resolve the issue. Now if the client has a history of abuse and you decide you no longer want to host them bring the server back online once they resolve it but send them a regular cancellation with 14 days due notice so they can move away nicely. People may complain about this but just cancelling the service without prior warning is always going to backfire and is simply unnecessary. A regular cancellation with 14 days due notice and you will be fine. Trust me it's the best and safest solution for everyone involved. Just insisting on your TOS is one thing but what is in your best interest is another thing (maybe not in this specific case though).
      0 Not allowed!

  25. #185
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hostinginsiders View Post
    In this specific case where the FBI and Al Quaeda are involved I can not blame you for your decision. But in general I think it is very important to make a difference between long term reseller customers and a quick fraudster who pays you with a stolen credit card. In the second case you can cancel the server right away. But in the first case I think the preferable method is a suspension, giving the customer a chance to resolve the issue. Now if the client has a history of abuse and you decide you no longer want to host them bring the server back online once they resolve it but send them a regular cancellation with 14 days due notice so they can move away nicely. People may complain about this but just cancelling the service without prior warning is always going to backfire and is simply unnecessary. A regular cancellation with 14 days due notice and you will be fine. Trust me it's the best and safest solution for everyone involved.
    I thank you for your input. We have a a large reseller base, and work with them and our direct sales with the same professional demeanor and attention. This server was canceled due to its history and the nature of the abuses.
      0 Not allowed!

  26. #186
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    WebHostingTalk
    Posts
    8,873
    I think this horse has been pretty well beaten.

    </thread>
    I support the Human Rights Campaign!
    Moving to the Tampa, Florida area? Check out life in the suburbs in Trinity, Florida.
      0 Not allowed!

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

Similar Threads

  1. Burstnet review - Burstnet / nocster experience
    By mdshah in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 12:41 PM
  2. BurstNET - Anyone Else had a problem? (NEVER GO WITH BurstNET!!!!!)
    By CustomHosting.org in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-14-2005, 10:23 AM
  3. BurstNET Slow Setup Time/BurstNET Slow Support Times
    By garmaknoc in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-11-2003, 12:57 PM
  4. BurstNet.cheat BurstNet.Carelessness BurstNet.presumption
    By Burst Lover in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2003, 12:27 PM
  5. BurstNet down??
    By Pluto in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-13-2002, 10:48 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •