Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]
I am sure The Gibson guitar company thought the same thing about the EPA. At least we can be sure that a TLA govt agency wouldn't be used to harass an administration's political opponents, right? On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore >> wrote: >>> Again, well settled. >>> >>> It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is >>> served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a >>> place where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers >>> from all nodes for exactly this reason. >> >> Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not >> be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block >> traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me? >> >> Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's >> censorship laws on us? > > > This is absurd. > > The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that > location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out > at the source by them. > > The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that > location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out > there by them. > > In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t > read the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by > the federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law > would still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route > traffic to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due > process is violating US law. > > Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce > anything. > > Owen >
Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Again, well settled. > > It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is > served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place > where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all > nodes for exactly this reason. Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me? Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's censorship laws on us?
Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is > pretty well settled. > > And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against > the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, > yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it or not. Which is the "jurisdiction in question" ? the originating website? the ISP? the CDN network's corporate home? my home?
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
>From 47CFR§8.5b (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management. What's a "lawful" web site? On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote: >> >> We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an >> already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin >> to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry >> that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years. >> > You really should read 47CFR§8. It won't take you more than an hour or so, > as it's only about 8 pages. > > The procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the > complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint > procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note > that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in > who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.' >
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only.
Re: Network Latency Measurements
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > Hi, > > We are looking for publicly available statistics of network latency > measurements taken in large networks. > For example, there is FCC's measurements > (http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2012/july). > However, we are looking for something more detailed that can show a large > number of latency measurements taken periodically (preferably with as small a > period as possible). > > Any help will be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Tal Mizrahi. > Would the bufferbloat people be a good place to ask? http://www.bufferbloat.net/ -- http://neon-buddha.net
Re: cable markers for marine environments
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > I have a couple of wiring projects coming up on salt water-going vessels and > I'm curious as to people's experiences with different types of cable marking > products in a high-humidity / salt air / bilge environment > > None of the markers will be directly exposed to the outside elements, but > quite a bit will be running below decks and will have to put up with the > bilge. Anyone have any horror stories to share? > > My preference is for a direct printing system rather than stock card markers. > > --lyndon > > I have had good results with printed labels covered in clear heatshrink. Awkward, time consuming, and generally annoying, but works, and lasts. Keep the label short, print big, and use marine (glue lined) heatshrink for best waterproofing. The regular stuff can allow seepage and mould growth under the heatshrink in extreme cases. -- http://neon-buddha.net
Re: recommendations for external montioring services?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Edward Dore wrote: > Take a look at Panopta - we use it to compliment our internal monitoring and > find it great compared to some of the systems we've used in the past > (Pingdom, Binary Canary). > > The interface is easy to use and responsive, we don't get false positives and > there are a good range of checks. There's an API as well if you want to > integrate it. > > I'd stay clear of the software agent though, we've had a few issues with > that. For remote service checks we love it. > > Edward Dore > Freethought Internet > > On 12 Dec 2011, at 19:10, Eric J Esslinger wrote: > >> I'm not looking to monitor a massive infrastructure: 3 web sites, 2 mail >> servers (pop,imap,submission port, https webmail), 4 dns servers (including >> lookups to ensure they're not listening but not talking), and one inbound >> mx. A few network points to ping to ensure connectivity throughout my >> system. Scheduled notification windows (for example, during work hours I >> don't want my phone pinged unless it's everything going offline. Off hours I >> do. Secondary notifications if problem persists to other users, or in the >> event of many triggers. That sort of thing). Sensitivity settings (If web >> server 1 shows down for 5 min, that's not a big deal. Another one if it >> doesn't respond to repeated queries within 1 minute is a big deal) A Weekly >> summary of issues would be nice. (especially the 'well it was down for a >> short bit but we didn't notify as per settings') >> I don't have a lot of money to throw at this. I DO have detailed internal >> monitoring of our systems but sometimes that is not entirely useful, due to >> the fact that there are a few 'single points of failure' within our >> network/notification system, not to mention if the monitor itself goes >> offline it's not exactly going to be able to tell me about it. (and that >> happened once, right before the mail server decided to stop receiving mail). >> >> _ Nagios, or Zabbix are the ones I am most familiar with. Zabbix is a bit involved to set up, and may not be what you need in the scale of things. Nagios is a bit cumbersome to keep up with rapidly changing systems of any size, but is good for small (and large) setups that are more static. Not without it's quirks mind, and takes a bit of work to set up if you've never done it before. But doesn't require a DB backend, or any other stuff, just a server to put it on. No agent needed, as long as everything you want to check is "gettable" from the server, like checking that a mail server is available for connections, etc. But can use agent checks, or pretty much any other checks. -- http://neon-buddha.net
Re: Web expert on his 'catastrophe' key for the internet
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > As wonderful as the new communications paradigms are, do we also > have a situation now developing where it might eventually become > very difficult or even impossible to ensure out-of-band lines of > communications remain available? > That's already a problem for getting alert pages. Any actual *pager* companies left? They all seem to have gone to SMS systems. -- http://neon-buddha.net
Re: dns interceptors
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i just lost ten minutes debugging what i thought was a server problem > which turned out to be a dns trapper on the wireless in the changi sats > lounge. this is not the first time i have been caught by this. > > what are other roaming folk doing about this? > > randy > > ssh tunnels to IP address -- http://neon-buddha.net
Re: news from Google
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > Peter Beckman wrote: > Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits > (or that I can't find): > > "We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties." > > ~Seth > > You aren't Bing's customer, you are a user. The line you quote, even if they follow it, would not prohibit them from selling any and all information they get from your searches. *yahoo* is Bing's customer. -- http://neon-buddha.net
