In message <83185.1554061...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> writes > >In message <sij4kbcqwoocf...@highwayman.com>, >Richard Clayton <rich...@highwayman.com> wrote: > >>However, it is not necessarily clear at all and writing a policy which >>assumes that it will always be clear is in my view unwise. >> >>Assuming that experts will always be able to determine who is at fault >>(along with deciding whether an event they know little of is accidental >>or deliberate) is to live in a world that I do not recognise. > >I disagree completely. The world would be one that you most certainly >*would* recognize. > >Your argument basically boils down to the following unsustainable >assertion: We cannot assume that we will always, and in 100% of all >cases, be able to accurately recognize "crime" when we see it. Therefore >we should have -no- criminal laws.
I don't agree ... what I am saying is that it can be very hard for real experts to agree. These are people who consider all possible reasons for events to occur and then offer their opinion as which reasons can be completely ruled out and which are unlikely to be actual explanation in the particular case. As a result we seldom operate justice by using experts (whether they agree or not) as the ultimate arbiters of how cases are decided. Instead, experts are used by those who are charged with dispensing justice as a means of understanding what is likely to have gone on, and these people then weigh the various opinions of the experts (or indeed their unanimity) in coming to their decision. >>If the policy stopped at the statement that unauthorised BGP hijacking >>was unacceptable behaviour then I would be happy with it. > >I have no idea what country you live in the United Kingdom (it's fairly easy to work that out BTW) >, but would you likewise find it >equally acceptable if your local national legislature also and likewise >passed a resolution calling for murder to be entirely decriminalized, >while adding that it is the sense of the legislature that murder shall >nontheless, and henceforth, be deemed "unacceptable behaviour" deserving >of public derision and scorn, but no further penalties whatsoever? As it happens (it's tricky when appealing to completely irrelevant matters isn't it?) the UK does not have a statute that makes murder a crime -- so it might be quite complicated to decriminalise it ! People are instead charged under the common law -- the court then decides whether or not they are guilty (often having considered the evidence of experts whose duty is explicitly defined as being to assist the court, albeit they are paid by either the prosecution or the defence). However if the accused is found guilty then the sentence is specified by statute (which, because it gives no leeway to the court, leads to numerous unfair outcomes which I will not elaborate here). So a policy which said that unauthorised BGP hijacking was unacceptable behaviour and charged RIPE NCC with addressing the problem if it was caused by anyone who used RIPE resources would I think be helpful. Telling RIPE NCC exactly how to recognise and deal with BGP hijacking (and specifying exactly how experts and no one else will determine what has occurred) is I think unhelpful and attempts to move forward this way are likely to be counterproductive. -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
