RE: Homeland Security now wants to restrict outage notifications
I did read the article and having worked for gov't agencies twice in my career a proposal like the one floated by DHS is just the camel's nose. I should hope the carriers oppose this. Now a call comes into our ops center "I cant reach my experiment at Stanford". Ops looks up the outages Oh yeah there's a fiber cut affecting service we will let you know when it's fixed. They check it's fixed they call the customer telling them to try it now. Under the proposed regime "We know its dead do not know why or when it will be fixed because it' classified information" This makes for absolutely wonderful customer service and it protects public safety how?. Scott C. McGrath On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Tad Grosvenor wrote:
Did you read the article? The DHS is urging that the FCC drop the proposal to require outage reporting for "significant outages." This isn't the DHS saying that outage notifications should be muted. The article also mentions: "Telecom companies are generally against the proposed new reporting requirements, arguing that the industry's voluntary efforts are sufficient."
-Tad
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott McGrath Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:58 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Homeland Security now wants to restrict outage notifications
See
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/24/network_outages/
for the gory details. The Sean Gorman debacle was just the beginning this country is becoming more like the Soviet Union under Stalin every passing day in its xenophobic paranoia all we need now is a new version of the NKVD to enforce the homeland security directives.
Scott C. McGrath
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting. The DHS is doing what it is paid to do: Look for the worst case scenario, predict the damage. And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against _aren't even in effect yet._ ** Reply to message from Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu> on Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
I did read the article and having worked for gov't agencies twice in my career a proposal like the one floated by DHS is just the camel's nose.
I should hope the carriers oppose this.
Now a call comes into our ops center "I cant reach my experiment at Stanford". Ops looks up the outages Oh yeah there's a fiber cut affecting service we will let you know when it's fixed. They check it's fixed they call the customer telling them to try it now.
Under the proposed regime "We know its dead do not know why or when it will be fixed because it' classified information" This makes for absolutely wonderful customer service and it protects public safety how?.
Scott C. McGrath
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Tad Grosvenor wrote:
Did you read the article? The DHS is urging that the FCC drop the proposal to require outage reporting for "significant outages." This isn't the DHS saying that outage notifications should be muted. The article also mentions: "Telecom companies are generally against the proposed new reporting requirements, arguing that the industry's voluntary efforts are sufficient."
-Tad
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott McGrath Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:58 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Homeland Security now wants to restrict outage notifications
See
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/24/network_outages/
for the gory details. The Sean Gorman debacle was just the beginning this country is becoming more like the Soviet Union under Stalin every passing day in its xenophobic paranoia all we need now is a new version of the NKVD to enforce the homeland security directives.
Scott C. McGrath
-- Jeff Shultz A railfan pulls up to a RR crossing hoping that there will be a train.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:27:10 PDT, Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@wvi.com> said:
The DHS is doing what it is paid to do: Look for the worst case scenario, predict the damage.
At some point, somebody with some sanity needs to look at the proposal, and say "If we think we have to resort to this, then the terrorists have already won".
And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against _aren't even in effect yet._
Wander over to www.chillingeffects.org or Ed Felton's www.freedom-to-tinker.org or any number of other sites that keep track of just how much trouble can be caused by the *threat* or *suggestion* of something....
On 6/24/2004 2:24 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:27:10 PDT, Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@wvi.com> said:
And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against _aren't even in effect yet._
or any number of other sites that keep track of just how much trouble can be caused by the *threat* or *suggestion* of something....
Was it really your intention to imply that this recommendation (and which should have been expected, given the DHS' job) is some kind of a threat? -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting.
With the current state of the government and it's previous legislation, I would consider that not overreacting at all... We as NANOG'ers need to make sure that we're in the clue. The issue of non-information leads for longer troubleshooting, and more irate customers. To each his own, however.. Thanks, Adam ---------------------------------------------------- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg Appleton: 920-738-9032 System Administrator Valley Fair: 920-968-7713 ExtremePC LLC -=- http://www.extremepcgaming.net
Consider the source of policy makers that make these decisions, are clueless to networks and infrastructure themselves. They fail to understand any costing metrics by adding another loop of useless people to he cycle at the expense of everyone, which will in the long run be damaging to the economy of those companies who will then move those centers offshore to remove the DHS from their loop, which causes job loss and skill base destruction beyond what it already is in the US. My vote on this proposal is no and contact my gov rep and complain. -Henry --- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg <star@extremepcgaming.net> wrote:
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting.
With the current state of the government and it's previous legislation, I would consider that not overreacting at all... We as NANOG'ers need to make sure that we're in the clue. The issue of non-information leads for longer troubleshooting, and more irate customers.
To each his own, however..
Thanks,
Adam
---------------------------------------------------- Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg Appleton: 920-738-9032 System Administrator Valley Fair: 920-968-7713 ExtremePC LLC -=- http://www.extremepcgaming.net
participants (6)
-
Adam 'Starblazer' Romberg -
Eric A. Hall -
Henry Linneweh -
Jeff Shultz -
Scott McGrath -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu