<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<div>All,</div><div><br></div><div>In message <<a href="mailto:92716.1554145980@segfault.tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">92716.1554145980@segfault.tristatelogic.com</a>>, Ronald F. Guilmette <span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-gI"><span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-qu"><span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-go"><span><</span><a href="mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">rfg@tristatelogic.com</a><span>></span></span></span></span>
wrote:<br></div><div><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-im">>So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to<br>
>a convicted criminal?<br>
<br></span>
That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that<br>
my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a convicted<br>
criminal.
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would argue this analogy itself is
poor. The gun store is directly supporting the convicted criminal in
potentially committing further acts. The criminal in this instance has
(presumably, at least in the jurisdiction you are referencing) been
convicted through a given legal process. There is substantial risk of
abuse and little barrier to entry to purchasing firearms. You do not need a firearm to survive
in most regions today.</div><div>In summary: high risk of danger (given their
conviction), low potential benefit to allowing it, and low risk of causing
harm to the individual or entity you have denied.<br></div><div> <br></div><div>In
the case of IP addresses and ASNs, the "convicted individual" has been,
under the current policy draft, convicted in the mind of one - perhaps
two upon appeal - experts (a term which has yet to be defined in
policy). Such an opinion, no matter how professional, is a very low bar
to be taking as objective. Having access to content online (which
inherently requires either your ISP or you to hold resources from the
NCC or another RIR) is significantly more necessary. <br></div><div>In summary: medium
(perhaps low, depending on the expert selection) risk of danger,
substantial potential benefit to allowing it, and high risk of causing harm
to the individual or entity you have denied.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
Should RIPE be selling them more? Apparently, as of right now, there is no<br>
rule in place to prevent this. And as I have already noted, the<br>
company known as Universal IP Solution Corp. is still a member in<br>
good standing of the RIPE association.<br>...<br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>If you are arguing that that is in any sense justifiable, either<br>
morally, ethically, or even legally, please say so explicitly.
</div></blockquote><div>
<div><br></div><div>Should the NCC be allocating them more addresses? <br></div></div><div>It is justified (morally, ethically,
and perhaps even legally) to continue treating all entities as equals by allocating resources for their use unless they have been determined to be a distinct threat by a trustworthy system, such as a board of peers (as in the case of a criminal conviction).
Keeping to my earlier discussion of the gun store analogy, I do not
believe that the opinion of a single expert (with the possibility of
appeal) is enough to determine their state. A multi-step process is needed in which an individual has many opportunities to prove their innocence. While I understand the goal of the policy in being expedient, I do not believe this process should be compromised in the name of expediency. A single appeal is not appropriate. <br></div><div>
The
IP addresses they have are not directly aiding in hijacking. While
their ASN may be, they could just as simply hijack another ASN. If IP space was to be revoked, they could simply hijack more as well.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
In my country, there is now at least one lawsuit, progressing through<br>
the courts, against gun manufacturers for their supportive role in<br>
some of our recent mass shootings. I hope that it does not take a<br>
similar legal action against RIPE before RIPE adopts some rational<br>
policies to prevent itself from being the handmadien of online<br>
cyber-criminal enterprises and from then being reasonably and properly<br>
held to legal account for this exact supportive role on ongoing<br>
cyber-crime schemes
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is pointless to speculate about the outcome of such a legal proceeding before it has been decided. <br></div><div><br></div><div>
In message
<<a href="mailto:92972.1554148548@segfault.tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">92972.1554148548@segfault.tristatelogic.com</a>>, Ronald F. Guilmette <span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-gI"><span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-qu"><span class="m_5134608110320326079gmail-go"><span><</span><a href="mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">rfg@tristatelogic.com</a><span>></span></span></span></span>
wrote:
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
>BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things <br>
>which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions <br>
>in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political <br>
>leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions, political dissent, blasphemy <br>
>and so on.<br>
<br>
As I have already pointed out, this "slippery slope" argument is a<br>
smokescreen, and only being used to justify the inexcusible status quo.<br>
<br>
The proposal on the table doesn't deal with any matters which are in<br>
any way even remotely tied to mere offenses against any local or<br>
localize sensibilities. It doesn't even remotely have anything at<br>
all to do with either (a) any actions or offenses in "meatspace" nor<br>
(b) any actions or offenses having anything at all to do with -content-<br>
in any sense. The present proposal only has to do with the outright<br>
THEFT of IP addresses, i.e. the very commodity which RIPE is supposed to<br>
the responsible shepard of.
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Within your jurisdiction, I can think of several cases which show this to not be the case (ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc., et al. being one of them). <br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
It would seem so, at least when the "slippery slope" arguments is<br>
clearly being made in order to falsely try to scare people with the<br>
bogeyman of "censorship". That is clearly not what the proposal is<br>
about, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to go back to school<br>
until he, she or it fully grasps the difference between content and<br>
the IP addresses that provide the technical means to distribute it.
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Blocking content distribution methods is effectively blocking the content itself. If your newspaper was unable to print and distribute their news because their electricity had been shut off (for anything outside of nonpayment), it would still be considered censorship.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
Whst this *is* actually all about is just this: You steal IPs and<br>
then you lose your IPs.
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I've still yet to be convinced that this would substantially cut down on hijacking; additionally, I've yet to be convinced that such a policy would not sweep up innocents due to its allowance of reports by the general public and incredibly low bar for labeling someone a hijacker.</div><div><br></div><div>Jacob Slater<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:56 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <<a href="mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com" target="_blank">rfg@tristatelogic.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
In message <<a href="mailto:b5c5ab11-5ad4-3489-dd76-ec10d5a16f88@foobar.org" target="_blank">b5c5ab11-5ad4-3489-dd76-ec10d5a16f88@foobar.org</a>>, <br>
Nick Hilliard <<a href="mailto:nick@foobar.org" target="_blank">nick@foobar.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things <br>
>which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions <br>
>in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political <br>
>leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions, political dissent, blasphemy <br>
>and so on.<br>
<br>
As I have already pointed out, this "slippery slope" argument is a<br>
smokescreen, and only being used to justify the inexcusible status quo.<br>
<br>
The proposal on the table doesn't deal with any matters which are in<br>
any way even remotely tied to mere offenses against any local or<br>
localize sensibilities. It doesn't even remotely have anything at<br>
all to do with either (a) any actions or offenses in "meatspace" nor<br>
(b) any actions or offenses having anything at all to do with -content-<br>
in any sense. The present proposal only has to do with the outright<br>
THEFT of IP addresses, i.e. the very commodity which RIPE is supposed to<br>
the responsible shepard of.<br>
<br>
Given all of the supposed experience and intelligence of the people on<br>
this list, I seriously have no idea why it should be necessary for me<br>
to explain the abundantly clear distinction between content and the<br>
wires and IP infrastructure that carries that content. Is this a<br>
really difficult concept to understand?<br>
<br>
It would seem so, at least when the "slippery slope" arguments is<br>
clearly being made in order to falsely try to scare people with the<br>
bogeyman of "censorship". That is clearly not what the proposal is<br>
about, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to go back to school<br>
until he, she or it fully grasps the difference between content and<br>
the IP addresses that provide the technical means to distribute it.<br>
<br>
As those of us who have actually spent years opposing Internet abuse<br>
like to say, our concern is not about abuse "on the Internet" but<br>
rather it has to do with abuse "of the Internet". Since this<br>
distinction has obviously traveled slowly to the far side of the<br>
pond, I am forced to provide some (hopefully educational) illustrations.<br>
<br>
If someone sends you a highly offensive email, or makes a highly offensive<br>
Farcebook post, saying that your paternal grandmother is a actually a<br>
closet Visigoth, then that constitutes abuse -on- the Internet.<br>
<br>
If, on the other hand, some hacker infects your machines, and thousands<br>
like it, and then uses his entire collection of infescted machines to<br>
DDoS you, presumably because you just beat him in a game of League of<br>
Legends, then that is abuse -of- the Internet, because in this case,<br>
it is the infrastructure itself that is being misused and abused...<br>
and -that- kind of abuse affects all of us.<br>
<br>
I seriously would have hoped that it would not have been necessary for<br>
me to provide people on this mailing list, in particular, with examples<br>
to illustrate the clear conceptual differences betwen abuse "on" the<br>
Internet and abuse "of' the Internet, but apparently I hoped in vain,<br>
and this rather critical and key distinction is still being either<br>
throughly misunderstood or else throughly ignored when it comes to<br>
these bogus "slippery slope" arguments.<br>
<br>
Let me say it more clearly. Nobody wants to take away your porn.<br>
That's not what this is about, as any fair-minded reader of the<br>
propsal can easily see. The idea is simple: Those who steal IP<br>
addresses shall not be allowed to keep those and shall not in fact<br>
be alowed to keep any IP addresses. Nobody is proposing reclaiming<br>
IP space from anyone who has the audacity to say. on the Internet,<br>
that Stalin may have been, um, suboptimal. Nobody is even proposing<br>
that the worst Internet child porn purveyor ever detected by law<br>
enforcement should have his IPs taken away. Because this is not<br>
about content and never will be.<br>
<br>
Whst this *is* actually all about is just this: You steal IPs and<br>
then you lose your IPs. I honestly don't understand why otherwise<br>
intelligent people should have such a hard time grasping this rather<br>
simple concept. This is really not rocket science.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
rfg<br>
<br>
<br>
P.S. My sincere apologies, in advance, to any and all parties who may<br>
be offended by my reference to Visigoths. I meant no offense, either to<br>
them or to any of their descendants who may be present here. I'm quite<br>
sure that some among the Visigoth were very fine people, even though I<br>
never had the privilege of meeting any of them personally.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>