Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 186
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Under The Floor Tiles
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by abhisri View Post
    I take great pleasure in enlightening you that this board has been slashdotted, due to this case. That is how I ended up here, assuming you know what slashdot is.

    And indeed the owner should have had a backup. But that is not really the point. Perhaps his backup was lost. Perhaps he didn't have a recent one. Who knows?

    As for the terrorist thing, seriously, what more can the "terror"ists do to folks like you? They have already achieved their goal. You are obviously *thoroughly, utterly and completely terrorised*. So they have already got what they wanted, thanks to your cooperation. I am particularly amused at your belief that terrorist do their terrorism by publishing public blogs.


    Me, I am just siding with the underdog here. Let us examine your actual trolling though. Someone harasses their own paying customer by claiming some mumbo-jumbo about "terrorist information". They refuse to provide any proof or the contact of the so-called agent. We are supposed to just take their word for it. Just because, well, they mentioned the magical "terrorism" word. My question is, what on earth is making you side with THEM? On what basis?

    The owner didn't author any such alleged articles himself. He just provided a blogging service. He is in no way responsible for the said info. There is no evidence that he refused to remove the said information. And yet the crappy ISP representative on the board made some soundbites about "Oh you have bigger troubles now than just your data! just you wait! you are in trouble now!". Why? Why are you actually supporting such nonsense?

    Let me ask you again. If one of the tenants is growing weed in his apartment, do you actually evict the whole building and threaten the *owner* of the building because some *tenant* happened to do something illegal?

    Or even better, if I was a mechanic and just took away your car that was at my shop for servicing and told you that it was due to national security and I am "not allowed" to even give you any details about it, what will be your reaction? I take it you will happily donate your car away in the name of national security?

    I take it that you are somehow related to burstnet, since you are so vocal in supporting its unprofessional, unethical actions?
    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.
    "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!

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Under The Floor Tiles
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by jofukia View Post
    One of the emails sent by BurstNet said this:


    We now know that law enforcement did not ask for the server to be terminated, so this was clearly a lie.
    Oh my God, drop it already. BurstNET already admitted publicly that one of their employees made a mistake in informing the client of the reason for the shutdown. They've admitted it publicly so you're not telling us anything new.
    "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!

  3. #153
    Yeah right, just a "mistake", is that an understatement or what? The "mistake" only became apparent when law-enforcement officials stated they did not ask for the server to be taken down. The fact is they lied about multiple things. The latest lie (implied) is that they can't give the guy his data back for some (legal?) reason. Not true, they could give it all back to him in a heartbeat. That they choose not to can only be because they want to kill off his business or harm him more than has already been done.

    I find the actions of BurstNet indefensible, it also makes them look totally unreliable as a hosting provider.
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,410
    Quote Originally Posted by jofukia View Post
    Yeah right, just a "mistake", is that an understatement or what? The "mistake" only became apparent when law-enforcement officials stated they did not ask for the server to be taken down. The fact is they lied about multiple things. The latest lie (implied) is that they can't give the guy his data back for some (legal?) reason. Not true, they could give it all back to him in a heartbeat. That they choose not to can only be because they want to kill off his business or harm him more than has already been done.

    I find the actions of BurstNet indefensible, it also makes them look totally unreliable as a hosting provider.
    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.
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    50
    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?
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #156
    Nobody here is actually a bursnet customer, i've been with burst for some 8 months and got lots of DMCA complaints, but burst did not close my services . They emailed me and told me to remuve contents or block them .
    If burstnet were to be an abusive provider i'd be shutted down long time ago.
    On this matter they did the right thing , if the site owner had no involvement in the abuse he'd be contacted by the feds to help them investigate this matter.
    Why do you think the feds did not call him ? He's prolly in on this.

    I've read some posts about hosting with burstnet will get you shutted down if someone uploads child porn on your server. THAT is not TRUE, if feds don't ask for this the server won't be stopped you get a chance to remuve the content ( IF IT WASN'T PLANTED BY YOU AND FEDS NOT INVOLVED ).
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,410
    Quote Originally Posted by rapaniosif View Post
    Nobody here is actually a bursnet customer, i've been with burst for some 8 months and got lots of DMCA complaints, but burst did not close my services . They emailed me and told me to remuve contents or block them .
    If burstnet were to be an abusive provider i'd be shutted down long time ago.
    On this matter they did the right thing , if the site owner had no involvement in the abuse he'd be contacted by the feds to help them investigate this matter.
    Why do you think the feds did not call him ? He's prolly in on this.

    I've read some posts about hosting with burstnet will get you shutted down if someone uploads child porn on your server. THAT is not TRUE, if feds don't ask for this the server won't be stopped you get a chance to remuve the content ( IF IT WASN'T PLANTED BY YOU AND FEDS NOT INVOLVED ).
    What are you smoking? Of course BurstNet will shut you down if you are hosting Child P*rn. That is illegal and upright disgusting. You make it sound like BurstNNet is a safe heaven for illegal activity with that statement. Yes, Federal Agents are involved in those cases, know your facts.
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Isle of Palms
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by sharmaine1111 View Post
    I have to side with Burst here. If they were asked to shut their mouth then this is something really serious. And they cannot be blamed for taking the server down. It's the feds instructions.

    Just consider this: someone dies from your house. All the members of the family is inside that house when the crime happens. What do you think will happen? Obviously all members of the family will be treated as suspects and each will be investigated, while their house is "impounded" by the government and they cannot go back to their house.

    It's the same with a server. While not all blogs there are doing illegal stuff, if someone from the family broke the law, each of the members of the family is held suspect until the investigation is over.

    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.
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #159
    you cannot support Terrorism unless you want to be in a Federal Prison all your life
    I like how fighting terrorism appears to justify everything. Do you realize that no-one here supports terrorism, including the owner of blogetery. From what we know a user posted *links* to a site that supports al-queda. BurstNet didn't notify blogetery, nor did it give them the opportunity to remove the links.

    Why do you think the feds did not call him ?
    Because they didn't have his details maybe? Quite likely because that's precisely the information they sought from BurstNet. Once they had that info, don't you think the next step would have been to contact him or make a house call?

    In fact BurstNet violated the law by revealing the fact that law-enforcement was interested in the site, while they were specifically asked not to. If the owner really had been a terrorist BurstNet's actions would have given him a warning that the feds were on to him, thus potentially thwarting a successful law enforcement operation. BurstNet should be prosecuted under federal law for this reckless behavior.
      0 Not allowed!

  10. #160
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    858
    Yeah, maybe the carriers giving burst.net should just cut the fibers so that they won't look as supporting terrorists into the eyes of their clients/
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #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!

  12. #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!

  13. #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!

  14. #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!

  15. #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!

  16. #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!

  17. #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!

  18. #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!

  19. #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!

  20. #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!

  21. #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!

  22. #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!

  23. #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!

  24. #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!

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,062
    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.
    Just199.com cPanel WebHosting and VPS's
    Paidforumposting.com The #1 content provider for forums and blogs
      0 Not allowed!

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

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

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

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