Re:Update for noc .nl problem..
I'm curious - how many ISPs hold to this kind of policy of being tight-lipped until subpoenaed? Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this response from @home. I know I would want to see an ISP I used do the same thing if confronted by The Law. Maybe that's just the Bill of Rights lover in me. Having said that, it sucks that they're forcing you to get the lawyers and the cops involved. I'd often prefer to see things handled on an informal basis of professional courtesy. Especially when real damage is done such as in your case. -carl hirsch network analyst sargent & lundy llc ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Update for noc .nl problem.. Author: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Date: 2/23/01 3:09 PM Spoke to someone from the home.com abuse department... Basic conversation was, We won't give you the information, Untill you subpeona us. Well time to get the lawyers involved. -- Scott Walker scott@unspeakable.org Cell 954.444.3408 http://www.unspeakable.org Network/Security Administrator There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works.
On 23 Feb 2001, CARL P HIRSCH wrote:
I'm curious - how many ISPs hold to this kind of policy of being tight-lipped until subpoenaed?
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this response from @home. I know I would want to see an ISP I used do the same thing if confronted by The Law. Maybe that's just the Bill of Rights lover in me.
Having said that, it sucks that they're forcing you to get the lawyers and the cops involved. I'd often prefer to see things handled on an informal basis of professional courtesy. Especially when real damage is done such as in your case.
-carl hirsch network analyst sargent & lundy llc
We won't release information but, we certainly will freeze log files and perhaps even thump the customer on the head with the "Bright Platinum Baseball Bat of Truth" until the subpoena does arrive. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
I would have been fully happy with that, while I never expected a "here is all the info" But a simple, "Well keeps log files untill it arrives" etc... Instead of a, you'll have to subpeona us for that information Thanks you for calling @home *click* Quoting John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>:
On 23 Feb 2001, CARL P HIRSCH wrote:
I'm curious - how many ISPs hold to this kind of policy of being tight-lipped until subpoenaed?
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this response from @home. I know I would want to see an ISP I used do the same thing if confronted by The Law. Maybe that's just the Bill of Rights lover in me.
Having said that, it sucks that they're forcing you to get the lawyers and the cops involved. I'd often prefer to see things handled on an informal basis of professional courtesy. Especially when real damage is done such as in your case.
-carl hirsch network analyst sargent & lundy llc
We won't release information but, we certainly will freeze log files and perhaps even thump the customer on the head with the "Bright Platinum Baseball Bat of Truth" until the subpoena does arrive.
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
-- Scott Walker scott@unspeakable.org Cell 954.444.3408 http://www.unspeakable.org Network/Security Administrator "But what...is it good for?" --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM commenting on the microchip, 1968.
At 03:22 PM 2/23/01 +0000, you wrote:
I'm curious - how many ISPs hold to this kind of policy of being tight-lipped until subpoenaed?
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this response from @home. I know I would want to see an ISP I used do the same thing if confronted by The Law. Maybe that's just the Bill of Rights lover in me.
Having said that, it sucks that they're forcing you to get the lawyers and the cops involved. I'd often prefer to see things handled on an informal basis of professional courtesy. Especially when real damage is done such as in your case.
We follow the same policy of not handing out client information without a legally binding document requiring us to do so. However, we do use our AUP to prevent further access if we have sufficient -evidence- of a violation. A severe violation may result in access being removed first while we conduct an internal investigation to determine the extent of the violation that took place. Providing client information is only useful for civil or criminal charges. What the individual under attack needs is access revoked and, for that need, we respond immediately.
They wouldn't even consider that.. They said email abuse@home.nl and wait for a response... Which is all good for spam, etc.. but something like what happened to us.. a 24 hour response could be too much.. Quoting J Bacher <jb@jbacher.com>:
At 03:22 PM 2/23/01 +0000, you wrote:
I'm curious - how many ISPs hold to this kind of policy of being tight-lipped until subpoenaed?
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this response from @home. I know I would want to see an ISP I used do the same thing if confronted by The Law. Maybe that's just the Bill of Rights lover in me.
Having said that, it sucks that they're forcing you to get the lawyers and the cops involved. I'd often prefer to see things handled on an informal basis of professional courtesy. Especially when real damage is done such as in your case.
We follow the same policy of not handing out client information without a legally binding document requiring us to do so.
However, we do use our AUP to prevent further access if we have sufficient -evidence- of a violation. A severe violation may result in access being removed first while we conduct an internal investigation to determine the extent of the violation that took place.
Providing client information is only useful for civil or criminal charges. What the individual under attack needs is access revoked and, for that need, we respond immediately.
-- Scott Walker scott@unspeakable.org Cell 954.444.3408 http://www.unspeakable.org Network/Security Administrator Court Room Quotes Q: "Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't you?" A: "I went to Europe, Sir" Q: "And you took your new wife?"
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:22:00PM +0000, CARL P HIRSCH wrote:
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this response from @home. I know I would want to see an ISP I used do the same thing if confronted by The Law. Maybe that's just the Bill of Rights lover in me.
I don't know, it seems kind of sad that instead of handling this like we used to back in the day (call the kid up and tell him to cut it out or we'll tell his parents), we now have to go straight to the court system and put people in jail. Not sure how that protects their civil rights.
participants (5)
-
CARL P HIRSCH -
J Bacher -
John Fraizer -
Scott Walker -
Shawn McMahon