Difference between revisions of "2009/11/18/How we discovered Verizon's Spamdetector could be twisted into a disguise for censorship"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (revised syntax for v1)
m (space between topics)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<hide>
 
<hide>
−
<let name=data index=Date>2009-11-18</let>
+
{{page/link|article}}
−
<let name=data index=Authors>\Paul Fitzgerald\Elizabeth Gould</let>
+
[[title/short::How we discovered Verizon's Spamdetector could be twisted into a disguise for censorship]]
−
<let name=data index=Source>Boiling Frogs</let>
+
</hide>
−
<let name=data index=Topics>\Verizon\US censorship\accountability\war on the internet\spam</let>
+
* '''when''': [[when posted::2009-11-18]]
−
<let name=data index=URL>http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/11/18/how-we-discovered-verizons-spamdetector-could-be-twisted-into-a-disguise-for-censorship/</let>
+
* '''author''': [[author::Paul Fitzgerald]][[author::Elizabeth Gould]]
−
<let name=data index=Title>How we discovered Spamdetector could be twisted into a disguise for censorship!</let>
+
* '''source''': [[site::Boiling Frogs]]
−
+
* '''topics''': [[topic::Verizon]] [[topic::US censorship]] [[topic::accountability]] [[topic::war on the internet]] [[topic::spam]]
−
<let name=data index=Text><blockquote>
+
* '''link''': [[URL::http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/11/18/how-we-discovered-verizons-spamdetector-could-be-twisted-into-a-disguise-for-censorship/]]
−
<p>We had just emailed the link to our interview discussing the 'real' history of [[Afghanistan]] on [[Sibel Edmonds]]'s boilingfrogspost.  As soon as it was emailed a [[Verizon]] response spit back immediately with a notice declaring the email we had just sent was [[spam]].  When the culprit turned out to be our friend Sibel's website we called Verizon to clear up the problem. This was clearly not spam and should be easily reinstated, we thought. While a very chatty employee attempted and failed to fix our problem, we innocently asked how can we get this address back in business. That is when the real fun began. According to the laws of Verizon Central, once been labeled spam, there is only one course of action and it goes like this:</p>
+
* '''title''': [[title::How we discovered Verizon's Spamdetector could be twisted into a disguise for censorship]]
 +
* '''summary''': [[Summary::&ldquo;According to the laws of [[Verizon]] Central, once you've been labeled spam, there is only one course of action and it goes like this:...&rdquo;]]
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>We had just emailed the link to our interview discussing the 'real' history of [[Afghanistan]] on [[Sibel Edmonds]]'s boilingfrogspost.  As soon as it was emailed a [[Verizon]] response spit back immediately with a notice declaring the email we had just sent was [[spam]].  When the culprit turned out to be our friend Sibel's website we called Verizon to clear up the problem. This was clearly not spam and should be easily reinstated, we thought. While a very chatty employee attempted and failed to fix our problem, we innocently asked how can we get this address back in business. That is when the real fun began. According to the laws of Verizon Central, once you've been labeled spam, there is only one course of action and it goes like this:</p>
  
 
# Verizon uses an unnamed third party who decides what is spam.
 
# Verizon uses an unnamed third party who decides what is spam.
Line 16: Line 20:
 
# If the unnamed third party decides it is spam, regardless of our complaint we will not hear back.
 
# If the unnamed third party decides it is spam, regardless of our complaint we will not hear back.
  
−
<p>That's it. There is no recourse to challenge the decision. There even a confirmation that the email we sent to this third party was received at all.  Of course, after 24 hours we still send out an email containing the link.</p>
+
<p>That's it. There is no recourse to challenge the decision. There isn't even a confirmation that the email we sent to this third party was received at all.  Of course, after 24 hours we still couldn't send out an email containing the link.</p>
−
</blockquote></let>
+
</blockquote>
−
 
+
{{page/link/footer}}
−
 
−
</hide><if not flag=$including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if>
 

Latest revision as of 21:01, 2 June 2019

We had just emailed the link to our interview discussing the 'real' history of Afghanistan on Sibel Edmonds's boilingfrogspost. As soon as it was emailed a Verizon response spit back immediately with a notice declaring the email we had just sent was spam. When the culprit turned out to be our friend Sibel's website we called Verizon to clear up the problem. This was clearly not spam and should be easily reinstated, we thought. While a very chatty employee attempted and failed to fix our problem, we innocently asked how can we get this address back in business. That is when the real fun began. According to the laws of Verizon Central, once you've been labeled spam, there is only one course of action and it goes like this:

  1. Verizon uses an unnamed third party who decides what is spam.
  2. This unnamed third party also reviews complaints like ours.
  3. We were told to send the "offending" email to spamdetector.update@verizon.net.
  4. The unnamed third party would make a secret decision within 24 hours.
  5. If the unnamed third party decides it is spam, regardless of our complaint we will not hear back.

That's it. There is no recourse to challenge the decision. There isn't even a confirmation that the email we sent to this third party was received at all. Of course, after 24 hours we still couldn't send out an email containing the link.




Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=2009/11/18/How_we_discovered_Verizon%27s_Spamdetector_could_be_twisted_into_a_disguise_for_censorship&oldid=64635"