Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider
What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off? The AUP standard is usually written much, much lower. Deepak Deepak ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Fri Jun 05 00:38:04 2009 Subject: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/06/ftc_sues_shuts_down_n_c... while allegedly a black hat, this is the first case i know of in which the usg has shut down an isp. nose of camel? first they came for ... randy
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Deepak Jain<deepak@ai.net> wrote:
What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off?
I hate to re-start the atrivo/intercage/mccolo thread(s) but, often what happens is there just arent any real/usable complaints sent along to the upstream providers. The webhost (aps/3fn in this case) may have avoided most/many of the complaints, over the years, being sent to their upstream(s) or they may have successfully shuffled their links faster than outages could be arranged. If address blocks or customers are shuffled fast enough, or timely enough, it looks like the problem is resolved to an upstream. One trick I've seen used is to re-announce address blocks out differing interfaces such that providers catalog the complaints not against the direct customer but against peers or other customers 'innocents' (possibly). If the upstream providers don't get quality complaints in a format they can use and catalog... nothing is going to change. If the upstreams see no abuse record there is no reason to term a paying customer. With the more criminally minded 'customers', the problem is a lot harder to bring to resolution if you are stuck inside the contracts/laws of your jurisdiction. It behooves the community at large to properly catalog and properly complain about these sorts of things. Saying: "dirty-webhost-X is never going to deal with my complaints so, I stopped sending them there X months|years ago." is not going to resolve the issue(s). Email to abuse@ is 'free' for the sender, almost all complaint generation systems can be automated, almost all complaint acceptance systems can be as well if the complaints come in well formed and with the right information included. -Chris
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:44:53AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
It says revenue trumps ethics in far too many instances. Virtually every company out there, regardless of size, has their share of those that some would rather do without but who stick around often because someone with authority is willing to look the other way. Why does this happen? Money. Simple as that. If they're willing to buy, someone is willing to sell. To put any real teeth behind the concept of an AUP and those that are supposedly charged with enforcing these, in a lot of firms, will take some sort of landmark criminal or civil case that effectively says, "You knew about these complaints and chose to ignore them, therefore you are complicit in what they did. Now fork over." It is unfortunate that this is probably going to be necessary, but thats the way I see things. Until companies are scared of the repercussions of weak or unenforced AUPs, this situation will not change. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
participants (4)
-
Christopher Morrow -
Deepak Jain -
Gadi Evron -
Wayne E. Bouchard