RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests. Now beyond that I don't know, but I am sure that being a co-conspirator to any number of illegal acts by facilitating them through what is set as the standard of "operational negligence", i.e. that what is generally expected of you, is still prosecutable. And when the first round of Network Admin's go to jail for being complicit in these frauds, the tunes regarding "hey you cant do this to us" will all vanish as your individual lawyers tell you to shut-up before contempt citations cost you more jail time. I wish this was different or that the general class of Admin's wasn't willing to fight this out - but after a few people wind up in jail, the general tune will change - I assure you. My one embedded comment in caps below "TSG -->" Todd Glassey -----Original Message----- From: Michael Loftis [mailto:mloftis@wgops.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:04 AM To: todd glassey; Robert A. Hayden; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True Yah but that's all akin to asking hte telephone company to make a log of each and every phone conversation above and beyond billing records. Unless you get billed per-piece of e-mail, or per HTTP connection an ISP should have to nor need ot keep a log of that data and be legally compelled to divulge any of that. TSG --> EXCEPT THAT THEY BECOME A PARTNER TO THE DECEPTION BY THEIR FACILITIES CONTINUING TO FACILITATE THE FRAUD. LOOK - IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT - BUT IT IS WHAT'S COMING - SO DO YOU WANT TO BE READY FOR IT OR SLAMMED BY IT? TAKE YOUR PICK. TSG --> THE WORST PART IS IF SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SENDS THIS ILLEGAL DATA GRAM TO YOU AND YOU FORWARD IT, YOU TECHNICALLY BECOME A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS "INTERSTATE FRAUD BY WIRE" AND THAT BRINGS THE FBI INTO IT POST HASTE. Just my $.02 TSG --> JUST MY $2. TSG --> Todd --On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:50 AM -0800 todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
How about this - The issue is really one of the commission of fraud and preventing it. So is NAT really an issue? I think not. I think it may be part of the legislation but that is because that the writers didn't have our input...
So if you as an ISP have a good operating process model
you log and sort your log data. What is the difference between a log that shows a bunch of stuff moving to a DHCP lease that was assigned to "xxx-yyyy" at "zz:zz" time on "dd-mm-yyyy" day. And that this lease was issued to account "blah" - then you have the most evidence that is available over a TCP connection anyway. And its as good as the testimony of the logs regarding that there was only one address at the end of that pipe serviced.
What I am saying is that any legislation preventing NAT is ludicrous and in fact counter productive. What it needs to be is legislation regarding how well ISP's have to audit what their customers do. That's it. Nothing more.
Look - what is the difference between the log data shown in a scenario where I don't use NAT but instead use Microsoft's Internet Sharing Feature in the Win2000 Servers? the answer is simple. Poof NAT gateway. And so now it is illegal to use a facility already distributed in every copy of MS Server deployed in these states....
Look what this law-shtick is all about is the mandating
and that
ISP's know what their customers are doing data wise, on their wires (the ISP's) and that's it.
Todd Glassey
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Robert A. Hayden Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security device as well? Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security breaches on my home network because they banned my firewall? From a political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs that are complaining about NAT as being soft on security and encouraging hacking. In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be some milage here.
I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been very open about people using NAT devices to the point that they are recommended in some cases as security devices as well as being sold by Charter's professional-services group as inexpensive firewalls. About six months ago I got a 1-page flier from Charter offering a 4-port Linksys and an on-site installation.
Since a "NAT device" could include virtually any operating system and any PC with two or more ethernet ports, it might be better to push the "firewall" aspects of them rather than try to defend or justify the MANY-to-1 routing aspects of NAT.
Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests.
If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too? No. If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too? No. Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
Stephen - my responses in caps - -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> these
laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests.
If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too? THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE - I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT. No. If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too? DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU. No. BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND - THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS, MY TAKE IS THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON. ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE... Common carrier status exists for this very reason. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3 OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY - Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" - TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG. see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago. I KNOW - I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
As reading your message both hurts my eyes and would take excessive effort to reformat for a reply, I won't do so. However, I do question the credibility of anyone who cites Cheech and Chong to back up his position. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking ----- Original Message ----- From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>; "Michael Loftis" <mloftis@wgops.com>; "Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@geek.net> Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, 31 March, 2003 17:07 Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
Stephen - my responses in caps -
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> these
laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests.
If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too?
THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE - I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT.
No. If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too?
DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.
No.
BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND - THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS, MY TAKE IS THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.
ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...
Common carrier status exists for this very reason.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3 OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -
Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection --
NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" - TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG.
see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
I KNOW - I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:32:18PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests.
If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too? No. If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too? No.
Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
And yet, if FedEx notices a package is ticking, they have the right to reject it without being held responsable for ones they don't catch. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
Allow me to continue to pummel the poor horse -- What about the customer that requests that the telco block calls from certain numbers? I don't think that affects common carrier status, but IANAL. apl
participants (4)
-
Alex Lambert -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Stephen Sprunk -
todd glassey