Re: OUTAGE: Known Iraq public Internet service
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Sean Donelan wrote: > In the last few hours, all the public Internet hosts I knew were > physically in Iraq (i.e. connected through the Iraqi state provider), > have stopped responding. I don't know the cause (power failure, > telecom failure, physical damage, shutdown by administrator, etc). The Associated Press reported Iraq's Information Ministry Internet server was on the 10th floor of the Information Minstry's building. That portion of the building was destroyed by a Tomahawk missle. Uruklink's street address appears to be very close to the Information Ministry, but I don't know Iraqi postal addresses and roads well enough to know the relationship between them. Whether Uruklink and the Information Ministry were one and the same.
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> > Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it. > This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights > from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately > according to what service is being used. This does not mean that every > ISP will not allow NAT. > > > (Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record the > > machine address of the devices connected.) > > And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of > service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model and sell as it > wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal extra service. > This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that continue to > allow and support NAT. The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices. Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft" is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something else to put someone in prison for such a breach. I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon, and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static IP addresses). > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DCMA(sp?) already performed this > function. Circumventing copyright protection has always been deamed > illegal and they are just now implementing laws to help protect it from > technology. The DMCA refers specifically to copyrighted works and has several (somewhat weak) safeguards built-in (must be primarily designed to circumvent, of limited commercial use, allowances for reverse engineering for interoperability purposes) These state laws cover both ISP services and copyrighted content services and have almost nothing in the way of safeguards. > > > Heck, it is possible to real this Act to prohibit changing your > > operating system from M$ to Linux. > > > It would be a far stretch, and I do not feel that it would hold up in > court as applying. > > One thing to note, a telecommunications service provider is defined in > such a way that anyone running a network is included. The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service providers that charge fees. It most definitely does not cover anyone running a network.
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote: > No, it is not theft of service. It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to > have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1. Nor does it cost them if > I use NAT. > > What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP > addresses (for which there may be an associated expense). But a user with > one machine can potentially use as much or more bandwidth than a user with > 20. There simply isn't a decent correlation between number of machines > and amount of service consumed. Even so, an ISP doesn't have a legitimate > complaint against users that are simply consuming the bandwidth that the > ISP advertised as being part of their service. So if I own an "all you can eat" restaurant you would say that I should allow you and your whole family to eat for the price of one person as long as only one of your was in the restaurant at any one time? Of course you'll say your family of vegetarian dieters eats less food than some truck driver I had in last week so thats okay. The ISP is able to charge the low price for "flat rate" Internet because it knows there is only one computer in the house and it's (99% of the time) doing normal web browsing and email type stuff for only a limited amount of time each day (p2p has screwed up the economics a bit). If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50% or 100% of it to really spoil your economics. Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and download quotas. -- Simon Lyall.| Newsmaster | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote: > Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power > users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and > download quotas. Hardly. Banning NAT doesn't filter out anyone. There are plenty of "power users" without NAT. Instead of using dishonest marketing, just explicitly ban bandwidth hog stuff like p2p services up front... -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
| If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only | uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50% | or 100% of it to really spoil your economics. Turn this assumption a part of the service: place a monthly transfer limit of some gigabytes. This will also scare p2p heavy-users and leave you with the high-margin low-usage customers. | Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power | users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and | download quotas. NAT doesn't always imply simultaneous users. Many people use it for security, I personally use for a 2-computer network with my desktop and my notebook, but never use both at the same time... Rubens
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote: > > No, it is not theft of service. It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to > > have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1. Nor does it cost them if > > I use NAT. > > > > What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP > > addresses (for which there may be an associated expense). But a user with > > one machine can potentially use as much or more bandwidth than a user with > > 20. There simply isn't a decent correlation between number of machines > > and amount of service consumed. Even so, an ISP doesn't have a legitimate > > complaint against users that are simply consuming the bandwidth that the > > ISP advertised as being part of their service. > > So if I own an "all you can eat" restaurant you would say that I should > allow you and your whole family to eat for the price of one person as > long as only one of your was in the restaurant at any one time? Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However, upload is definetly throttled, stops at about 250 kbps. So that is what I am paying for. It's not limitless. I payed for a big mac and a drink with free refills, If I share that with my room mate, I am not stealing from them. -Mike > > Of course you'll say your family of vegetarian dieters eats less food > than some truck driver I had in last week so thats okay. > > The ISP is able to charge the low price for "flat rate" Internet because > it knows there is only one computer in the house and it's (99% of the > time) doing normal web browsing and email type stuff for only a limited > amount of time each day (p2p has screwed up the economics a bit). > > If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only > uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50% > or 100% of it to really spoil your economics. > > Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power > users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and > download quotas. > > -- -Mike Lyon - -Network Admin/Engineer for hire: - -www.mikelyon.net - - Cell: 408-621-4826 -
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: >The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices > where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices. > Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited > necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the > customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft" > is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for > breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something > else to put someone in prison for such a breach. I really fail to see what the problem is. You're trying to justify that you should be allowed to use NAT (and by implication, mulitple nodes behind your NAT) and it not be illegal. If your ISP says that you are paying for access *per node* and not allwoedto use NAT, then your use of NAT is theft of service, because you're not paying for those extra nodes to access (through) the ISP's network. The extra cost (or lack there of) to the ISP is irrelevent. If you're not allwoed to use NAT, you're not allowed to use NAT. If you're paying for per-node access, breach of this is theft of service. >I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits > the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon, > and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they > do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static > IP addresses). Interesting that Charter Communications in Los Angeles doesn't mind you doing this.
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Mike Lyon wrote: Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However, upload is definetly throttled, stops at about 250 kbps. Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this assumption. Most of the providers selling DSL at the cheap rates are actually losing money and subsidising it with their other revenues. What right do we have to say that one business model is better than another, and circumvent the business model? Thus there are laws being made to help protect the business models. This is what happens when people take advantage of something because they *can*. Personally, I don't like the limit by machine approach. On the other hand, I give out private addresses and NAT all my users. Real IP addresses cost the same amount that I pay for the bandwidth (and it's expensive way out in the sticks). We also run at a higher rate than SWBell one town over. Why? They are subsidising the costs; we aren't. When it's cheaper to run bandwidth 100 miles into the country, then we'll lower our rates to reflect based on the usage of the users. Since they p2p and feel they will use 100% all the time, the price stays high. We don't care how much they complain. We're in the profit business, not filing chapter 11 like our competitors. -- -Jack "Why can't I have 1.5Mb/s for 39.95?" "You live in the sticks. 59.95 for 256Kb/s is a fair price."
Re: is this true or... ?
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost > identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect > an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. > It is amazing how many in the public think their legislators actually draft those laws that get voted upon. In realty, many bills are presented to the Hill Critter by the lobbyist; be it one from an ILEC, the FBI [excuse me, we call those "Legislative Affairs Branch employees"], drug company, Perdue, Ashcroft, etc. Sure the words might get massaged a little, later on, but And in all cases, remember the lesson of Watergate: Follow The Money to figure out where the bill came from initially. -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] & no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
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.
RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
> > And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of > > service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model > and sell as it > > wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal > extra service. > > This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that > continue to > > allow and support NAT. NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more effective than Norton or others, as it does not use the resources of the system. If this is illegal, then the law truely is contradictoriy. As I understand it, it says that a network operator has the right to protect themselves. A network can be defined as 1 or more computers connected to 1 or more other computers. >The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of > NAT devices > where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices. HMMM - Cisco just bought Linksys-- This should prove interesting > Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where > prohibited > necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the > customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft" > is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for > breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something > else to put someone in prison for such a breach. See note above... NAT- A poor man's type of firewall. >I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits > the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon, > and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they > do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple > routable static > IP addresses). That is surprising.. IN SC I know charter does not say that.. As a Matter of fact, I have worked closely with several local Charter Engineers. And they have really been exactly opposite... >The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service > providers that charge fees. It most definitely does not cover > anyone running a network. how do they define a network? If I have a computer at home and it talks to other computers.. Then don't I operate a network? Later, Jim
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Jamie Lawrence wrote: "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit." - Robert Heinlein, "Life Line", 1939. It's not a matter of guaranteeing profit. It is a matter of stopping theft. Please see the old laws protecting telephone and cable companies. Now they asked it to be extended to help protect ISPs. The only part I do have an issue with in the Act is the fact that it limits the use of NAT devices where an ISP does not allow them. However, I do not construe this as a serious problem, as people using the service shouldn't use such technologies in the first place. They are knowingly bypassing the terms of service. As for the other providers, the Act doesn't apply. While many whine and complain, I particularly like the protections on the copyrights, including the X-box. Most people didn't have the knowledge to make blank cartriges in the olds days and download the code to the cartriges to play a game. Everyone can download software and burn a CD. Smack in a mod chip and you're good to go. I may not like M$, but I have to respect their copyrights. -Jack
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > >The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices > > where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices. > > Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited > > necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the > > customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft" > > is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for > > breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something > > else to put someone in prison for such a breach. > > I really fail to see what the problem is. > You're trying to justify that you should be allowed to use NAT (and by > implication, mulitple nodes behind your NAT) and it not be illegal. > If your ISP says that you are paying for access *per node* and not > allwoedto use NAT, then your use of NAT is theft of service, because > you're not paying for those extra nodes to access (through) the ISP's > network. > The extra cost (or lack there of) to the ISP is irrelevent. If you're > not allwoed to use NAT, you're not allowed to use NAT. > If you're paying for per-node access, breach of this is theft of > service. I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for termination of service. However, going beyond termination of service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an entirely different case. If you stop paying your ISP bill (thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you off) wouldn't that also be theft of service? Should one also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for such an act? > > >I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits > > the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon, > > and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they > > do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static > > IP addresses). > > Interesting that Charter Communications in Los Angeles doesn't mind you > doing this. Here is my reference for Charter Communications in Michigan, however, this web page could be out of date. http://support.chartermi.net/gh/residential/pipeline/ Additional Computers: Charter Communications allows up to 3 computers behind each cable modem connected via a hub. The customer is responsible for the purchase and installation of the hub, cross over cables and ethernet cables necessary to connect the additional computers. Charter Communications does not support or install hubs or additional computers. Charter prohibits the use of routers or proxy servers behind cable modems. Use of these methods to connect additional computers and Local Area Networks is grounds for disconnection of service. For more than 3 computers or for a Local Area Networks please speak to our Commercial Sales Team: 888-968-3442.
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Larry J. Blunk wrote: I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for termination of service. However, going beyond termination of service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an entirely different case. If you stop paying your ISP bill (thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you off) wouldn't that also be theft of service? Should one also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for such an act? If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be equivelent here). -Jack
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
[snip] You can be assured that what ever references to "trick or acrobatic flying" will be challenged by the AOPA (aopa.org) . Those rules/laws are the domain of the FAA. Sounds like too long of a winter and it froze their brains. M This was passed in a lame duck session (December 11, 2002) as part of a big omnibus crime act that covered everything from "adulteration of butter and cream", to "trick or acrobatic flying" to "false weights and measures", mostly increasing fines and/or jail for existing offenses. Michigan is a leader in overcrowding its prisons. There was other lame duck legislation passed, before a new Governor took office, almost all of it bad for civil liberties! -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > > >I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is > > prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for > > termination of service. However, going beyond termination of > > service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly > > punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an > > entirely different case. If you stop paying your ISP bill > > (thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you > > off) wouldn't that also be theft of service? Should one > > also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for > > such an act? > > If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your > bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for > running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence > set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be > used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be > equivelent here). > > -Jack Sigh. My point is this is a question of extremes and punishment commensurate with the "crime". I can understand how one could consider NAT to be "theft" under a terms of service agreement. I can even understand how one might think this should be a criminal offense (although I would disagree - consider how many ISP's consider NAT to be perfectly acceptable). However, going beyond a misdemeanor offense and a fine - advocating prison time and felony convictions - is something I simply can't understand or find supportable.
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:55:44AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your > > bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for > > running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence > > set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be > > used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be > > equivelent here). > > Sigh. My point is this is a question of extremes and punishment > commensurate with the "crime". I can understand how one could > consider NAT to be "theft" under a terms of service agreement. I > can even understand how one might think this should be a criminal > offense (although I would disagree - consider how many ISP's > consider NAT to be perfectly acceptable). However, going beyond a > misdemeanor offense and a fine - advocating prison time and felony > convictions - is something I simply can't understand or find > supportable. [I think this is starting to step slightly outside the bounds of nanog, but it's still linked.] Look it's very simple. If you steal something, you go to jail. That's really nto hard to understand, and the reason it doesn't happen more often, is because prison systems are already too full of people convicted of more serious crimes. You've already agreed to the statement that the act can be considered theft. If you steal, you go to jail. Simple. If you steal, you're a criminala because, you've commited a crime.. Simple. Aquiring a service outside the bounds of any existing contract with the intention of not paying for it, is also fraud. I can't see why you have a problem sending someone to jail for commiting a crime. The same works the OTHER way. If you violate federal or state laws on computer crimes, you're a criminal, you go to jail. I don't know the statistics on how many people are convicted annually under various pieces of computer-misuse related legislation, but I'm sure someone does. -- Avleen Vig "Say no to cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" Systems Admin"Fast, Good, Cheap. Pick any two." www.silverwraith.com "Move BSD. For great justice!"
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
> users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
> download quotas.
Problem solved -- all my local machines are not on a NAT block,
but {say} Broken Ring or ArcNet...
Now, am I a felon or not? [we'll leave "insane" out of this...]
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
todd glassey wrote: Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal Issues with operating network services, and since there are jail terms being talked about I suggest that these are now sub-organizations who's time as come. I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal aspects are relevant to NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is excess in their mailbox and deters them from the technical aspects of networking. -Jack
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Jamie Lawrence wrote: Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, if you think those where good laws. I don't necessarily think they are good laws. What it comes down to is this. A person will do whatever they think they can get away with if the punishment is only losing their service. I personally think that ISPs should write in penalty costs for breaking TOS and AUP and set them high enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way to scare people into doing what is right to begin with. Extending this to criminalizing devices capable of doing NAT, or port forwarding, or (seemingly, in some cases) encryption, or anonymous remailers, is stupid and wrong. I do think that the Act was poorly written and have stated such. There is too much room for abuse of the Act. They tried to incorporate too many things under one umbrella. And ISP should not be grouped with telco or even cable. It has it's own sets of problems, and those problems should be handled uniquely. Combining legislation has never been a good deal. If you need to criminalize what you should be enforcing by contract, your business has a problem. People, especially home users, don't fear breach of contract, especially if they feel they might get away with it. They do fear the law and going to jail; reguardless of if it's enforced heavily or not. -Jack
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only > uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50% > or 100% of it to really spoil your economics Personal Telco has some interesting opinions on this: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/StealingBandwidth?action=highlight&va lue=CategoryPhilosophy (quoting) "Traditional broadband providers cry foul when users take their cable modem or DSL connections and beam them to friends, family and passsers-by through Wi-Fi networks. "It constitutes a theft of service per our user agreement," says AT&T Broadband's Sarah Eder. But at least one very important observer doesn't buy that. "I don't think it's stealing by any definition of law at the moment," says FCC chairman Michael Powell. "The truth is, it's an unintended use." apl
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Lambert) [Sun 30 Mar 2003, 20:19 CEST]: > http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/StealingBandwidth?action=highlight&va > lue=CategoryPhilosophy > > (quoting) > "Traditional broadband providers cry foul when users take their cable modem > or DSL connections and beam them to friends, family and passsers-by through > Wi-Fi networks. "It constitutes a theft of service per our user agreement," > says AT&T Broadband's Sarah Eder. But at least one very important observer > doesn't buy that. "I don't think it's stealing by any definition of law at > the moment," says FCC chairman Michael Powell. "The truth is, it's an > unintended use." Right. How would you feel when your butcher started selling meat only for personal use, and if you wanted to feed your family with it you would have to buy the family meat package (which comes presliced for up to three kids)? And now you'd go to jail if you didn't cook it in separate frying pans. -- Niels (stretching analogies for fun and profit)
RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real issue though and its important to the global operations of the bigger picture Internet - besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's to hit your customers for more money since you now have serious legal issues constraining how you architect your business. Todd -->-Original Message- -->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of -->Jack Bates -->Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:59 AM -->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -->Subject: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State -->Super-DMCA Too True) --> --> --> -->todd glassey wrote: -->> Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several -->> splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal -->> Issues with operating network services, and -->since there are -->> jail terms being talked about I suggest that -->these are now -->> sub-organizations who's time as come. -->> --> -->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal -->aspects are relevant to -->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is -->excess in their mailbox -->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking. --> -->-Jack --> -->
Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
Hello, Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. I can host such a list. - Jared On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote: > > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real > issue though and its important to the global operations of > the bigger picture Internet - > > besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's > to hit your customers for more money since you now have > serious legal issues constraining how you architect your > business. > -->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal > -->aspects are relevant to > -->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is > -->excess in their mailbox > -->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking. > --> > -->-Jack -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
Hi guys, Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? -- Rafi ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed: JM> JM> JM> Hello, JM> JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. JM> JM> I can host such a list. JM> JM> - Jared JM> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote: JM> > JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real JM> > issue though and its important to the global operations of JM> > the bigger picture Internet - JM> > [snipped]
Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
Rafi Sadowsky wrote: Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic. -Jack
RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
I agree...Partially Legal issues are important, but those below a management level, mostly don't care.. I would not necessarily want another list to watch.. But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less about... anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know.. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM > To: Rafi Sadowsky > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) > > > > Rafi Sadowsky wrote: > > > > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? > > > > The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, > there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, > and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to > keep track of > legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic. > > -Jack > > >
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sunday, 2003-03-30 at 09:07 CST, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell > services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did > their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this > assumption. It's fine to oversell your capacity, as long as you inform your customers that that is what you're doing. And it's ok to put bandwidth limits on usage (or tiered pricing), as long as you're up front with your customers about it (don't advertise a 2 Mb/s connection for $50 and then, in the fine print, say that the customer can't average more than 50 kb/s). It's not fine (although an ISP can do it if they choose) and it is somewhat stupid to try to control what you care about (bandwidth) by limiting something that is not necessarily related to that resource (NAT, certain apps, etc.). In summary, charge appropriately for what costs you money. NAT does not cost you anything. Charge for bandwidth, helpdesk calls (not due to ISP problems), whatever really is a direct expense to the provider. Again, tell the customer plainly about these limitations (before they commit to them). Tony Rall
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
In a message written on Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:22:11PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote: > Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it. > This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights > from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately > according to what service is being used. This does not mean that every > ISP will not allow NAT. I find this argument interesting, because a lot of people seem to share your feeling that the ISP can, in the terms of service, allow or disallow specific uses. I submit at this point in time they can, but it would be amazingly stupid for them to do that. As much as ISP's don't want it admit it an internet connection is being treated more and more like a utility. Drop into that mix that many consumers who can get DSL or Cable Modems only have a single ISP to buy from and it looks even more like a utility. Now, does the electric company tell you what you can and can't plug in? Do they tell you that you can only use 120v devices, or 220v devices? No, they simply bill you for what you use. Does the water company tell you that you can't drink the water? Share it with a stranger that stops by? Bill you based on how many sinks and showers you have? No, they simply bill you for what you use. Does the phone company tell you how many phones you can have? Do they prevent you from using a cordless phone, or loaning that cordless phone to your neighbor? No, they simply bill you for what you use. The last one is an interesting case. The phone company used to lease you the phones (and you didn't have a choice). They kept tally of every connection, required you to use them to run all the wires. They screamed for years that if the system was run any other way it would all fall apart. Well, the people revolted, broke up AT&T, and put in a pile of government regulation to allow people to plug up (at least from a phone point of view) pretty much anything. If ISP's keep imposing these overly restrictive terms of service eventually the people will revolt. The government will come in and make a huge mess of the industry, but probably "fix" things from the consumer point of view. ISP's would be wise to look at what the other utilities do, and make their service be the dropping off of an Ethernet port on a billing device (eg, meter) and simply bill per bit. In the end, I think users would be more happy (plug up whatever you want, however you want, we don't care!), and I think the ISP's would make more money. First, more people would plug up more stuff. Second, they would make revenue off things they don't today. They outlaw servers because they can't make money on them with $49.95 a month pricing. Well, if you bill by the bit the guy who runs a server can pay $50 in usage charges. He has his server, the ISP has the money to scale their network to support it. We call this a win-win situation. Third, they could lower the entry point price for people with low needs. $25 could get you DSL with 1G a month for grandma and her e-mail, while $100 could get you DSL with 8G a month for a gamer. The grandma who won't pay $50 today might pay $25. So, while the ISP's may not be doing anything illegal, and in fact may be having success in passing laws to make what they seem to want to do even easier, they are being extremely short sighted and stupid. They may get a couple of good years out of this run, but eventually the people will be fed up, and fed up people get the government involved, and the government will fix it in it's usual bull-in-a-china-shop way, which will be very bad for the ISP, and hopefully only slightly bad for the consumer. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.= 20 > > This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights= Shades of "You MUST rent your telephones from Ma; FOREIGN EQUIPMENT may damage the network..." of years past. -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] & no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote: > enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has > shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way > to scare people into doing what is right to begin with. Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than a guy who beats his wife? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Dan Hollis wrote: Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than a guy who beats his wife? And like wife beating, I'm sure that people will still break the ISP's TOS. -Jack
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Avleen Vig wrote: > I can't see why you have a problem sending someone to jail for commiting > a crime. The punishment does not fit the crime. The punishment here is more severe than a lot of violent crimes. Unless of course you feel that "stealing service via NAT" is a truly serious offense... -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re[2]: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote: > > enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has > > shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the > > way to scare people into doing what is right to begin with. > Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than > a guy who beats his wife? i've been holding my tongue, but i'm quite frankly concerned that numerous corporate interests (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) are trying hard to get certain things criminalized that are dealt with perfectly well already in civil contract law. an ISP can permit or ban NAT as they see fit, per their TOS. no need for this to be criminal. richard -- Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500 JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim" JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or JM> Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds JM> NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the JM> world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more Actually, it _is_ stateful. It tracks state so it knows what inbound traffic is directed to what IP:port on the inside, or dropped if no match is found. Run 1:1 NAT and see how secure that is. Run a "public" IP address with stateful rules that drop inbound traffic unless outbound traffic happened "recently". Compare. NAT's "security" is a by-product of state that is necessary to achieve 1:N mapping. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
maybe I should have said Stateful inspection.. IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments. thanks, J > -Original Message- > From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500 > JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim" > > > JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the > JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or > JM> Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds > JM> NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the > JM> world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more > > Actually, it _is_ stateful. It tracks state so it knows what > inbound traffic is directed to what IP:port on the inside, or > dropped if no match is found. > > Run 1:1 NAT and see how secure that is. Run a "public" IP > address with stateful rules that drop inbound traffic unless > outbound traffic happened "recently". Compare. > > NAT's "security" is a by-product of state that is necessary to > achieve 1:N mapping. > > > Eddy > -- > Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division > Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building > Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national > Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita > > ~ > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) > From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. > > These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. > Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to > be blocked. > >
RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why not nanog-legal ?)
I am not for or against either.. just putting thoughts out there.. NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles, and a more consuming one for those of us already on numerous lists.. all in all, NANOG as a whole single list usually inspires more information sharing when taken whole, IMHO Jim > -Original Message- > From: William Devine, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:15 PM > To: McBurnett, Jim; 'Jack Bates'; 'Rafi Sadowsky' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why > not nanog-legal ?) > > > Why not a nanog-legal list ? > > wiliam > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > McBurnett, Jim > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 01:47 PM > To: Jack Bates; Rafi Sadowsky > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) > > > > I agree...Partially > Legal issues are important, but those below a > management level, mostly don't care.. > I would not necessarily want another list to watch.. > But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less > about... > > anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know.. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM > > To: Rafi Sadowsky > > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) > > > > > > > > Rafi Sadowsky wrote: > > > > > > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? > > > > > > > The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, > > there are some that want to know what's going on in the > legal system, > > and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to > > keep track of > > legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic. > > > > -Jack > > > > > > > > >
RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:18:42 -0500 JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim" JM> maybe I should have said Stateful inspection.. JM> IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands JM> that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments. That would be a protocol-level proxy, and is orthogonal to state. :-) Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why notnanog-legal ?)
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable An entity claiming to be McBurnett, Jim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: :=20 : I am not for or against either.. : just putting thoughts out there.. : NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles, :=20 I would suggest calling it "nanog-policy". I think the policy subheading is a little more inclusive than "legal" and fits nicely with the implementation/policy division that many consider to be fundamental in system engineering. Just my $0.02, Mark --=20 [] Mark 'Doc' Rogaski | Guess what? I got a fever! And the only [] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | prescription ... is more cowbell! [] 1994 Suzuki GS500ER| -- Christopher Walken (as Bruce Dickinson) [] 1975 Yamaha RD250B | --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+h3Vb79qnkXHz9aMRAhw7AJ9oXxkNKGM40C3a+bk581MWH6ariQCfaXdQ CSKawXTsWLHwTLIp3ksJnj8= =Vhyb -END PGP SIGNATURE- --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
I am not sure I am following the argument here. as far as I can make out 1. Many (all!) providers underprovision (aka oversell) their bandwidth, expecting peak utilisations to be approximately the provisioned amount because experience has shown that actual usage is only a percentage of theoretical purchased bandwidth 2. If "power users" use even half the bandwidth they were *sold*, then that has to be made up from low-bandwidth users to maintain an average in line with actual provisioning; the price charged is actually based on the provisioning, not actual usage or sold bandwidth, and is therefore profitable only if the actual usage matches statistically 3. most power users eat bandwidth from a single machine downloading at the maximum achievable rate and/or running servers; however, some could well do so using multiple machines using NAT, and some otherwise low-bandwidth users could possibly use more bandwidth if running multiple machines behind NAT (based on the idea that low bandwidth users can't possibly use a multi-user OS like linux and dumb terminals) 4. Trying to bandwidth limit users to a fraction of the bandwidth they were theoretically sold (and/or similar schemes like total data transferred caps and excess data usage charges) are politically and techically awkward; customers don't like trying to understand that you sold them a product that you knew in advance you couldn't provide, and tend to look around for lawyers when that happens 5. therefore making the sale or advertisting of NAT devices illegal (and by extension, commercial firewalls such as checkpoint's fw-1 and nat-capable cisco routers) is only reasonable and perfectly defendable. it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Dave Howe wrote: > it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Dan Hollis wrote: Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense. It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs. They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks could cut their rates, so that small networks could cut their rates, so that @home can have service for $50/mo. If @home uses full bandwidth, and each of the networks steps up to meet the bandwidth, either a) @home gets billed no less than 4 times as much or b) any network that doesn't step up pricing goes into Chapter 11. In addition, it's questionable if the overall network infrastructure can handle that amount of throughput. 1.5Mb/s to the house sounds so wonderful, but at $50/mo, it's not really feasible without a lot of oversell. People traditionally base oversell per computer connection (taken from dialup overselling). I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it? -Jack
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Jack Bates wrote: > > William Allen Simpson wrote: > > It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers. > > I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws others (say your > ISP) from decryping your encrypted data. > That is not correct. I'm very sensitive to these issues. As those of you that have been around for awhile may recall, I was investigated by the FBI for "treason" merely for *WRITING* the specification for PPP CHAP and discussing it at the IETF (under Bush I). I don't expect it to be different for Bush II. As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device is a felony! Jack, you need to actually look at the text of the Act: (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following: (a) ... (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service. [no encryption, no steganography, no remailers, no NAT, no tunnels] [no Kerberos, no SSH, no IPSec, no SMTPTLS] (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider. [no NAT, no wireless, no sniffers, no redirects, no war driving, ...] (2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a telecommunications access device for the purposes described in subsection (1). [no research, no mod'ing] (3) A person shall not deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise plans, written instructions, or materials for ... [no technical papers detailed enough to matter] (4) A person who violates subsection (1), (2), or (3) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. All fines shall be imposed for each unlawful telecommunications access device or telecommunications access device involved in the offense. Each unlawful telecommunications access device or telecommunications access device is considered a separate violation. [big penalties] (a) Telecommunications and telecommunications service mean any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or reception of signs, data, images, signals, writings, sounds, or other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any nature over any telecommunications system by any method, including, but not limited to, electronic, electromagnetic, magnetic, optical, photo-optical, digital, or analog technologies. [everything from a DVD, to the network, to the monitor, to t-shirts] -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
Well, if it is that big.. no IPSEC.. then I suspect Cisco, Checkpoint, and others to stand up ASAP.. This is no right As I see it a growing percentage of companies are moving to IPSEC VPNs and leaving dedicated ckts behind.. I can't believe that legislators would be so un-informed, and Cisco/the industry would be so out of touch.. J > -Original Message- > From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > Jack Bates wrote: > > > > William Allen Simpson wrote: > > > It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers. > > > > I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws > others (say your > > ISP) from decryping your encrypted data. > > > That is not correct. > > I'm very sensitive to these issues. As those of you that have been > around for awhile may recall, I was investigated by the FBI > for "treason" > merely for *WRITING* the specification for PPP CHAP and > discussing it at > the IETF (under Bush I). I don't expect it to be different > for Bush II. > > As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device > is a felony! > > Jack, you need to actually look at the text of the Act: > > (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, > deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful > telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, > manufacture, > possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a > telecommunications device intending to use those devices > or to allow > the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or > having reason to know that the devices are intended to be > used to do > any of the following: > > (a) ... > > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any > telecommunications service. > > [no encryption, no steganography, no remailers, no NAT, no tunnels] > [no Kerberos, no SSH, no IPSec, no SMTPTLS] > > (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, > intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, > transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any > telecommunications service without the express authority or actual > consent of the telecommunications service provider. > > [no NAT, no wireless, no sniffers, no redirects, no war driving, ...] > > (2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a > telecommunications access device for the purposes described in > subsection (1). > > [no research, no mod'ing] > > (3) A person shall not deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise > plans, written instructions, or materials for ... > > [no technical papers detailed enough to matter] > > (4) A person who violates subsection (1), (2), or (3) is > guilty of a > felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a > fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. All fines shall > be imposed > for each unlawful telecommunications access device or > telecommunications access device involved in the offense. Each > unlawful telecommunications access device or telecommunications > access device is considered a separate violation. > > [big penalties] > > > (a) "Telecommunications" and "telecommunications service" mean any > service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to > facilitate > the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or > reception of signs, data, images, signals, writings, sounds, or > other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any > nature over > any telecommunications system by any method, including, but not > limited to, electronic, electromagnetic, magnetic, optical, > photo-optical, digital, or analog technologies. > > [everything from a DVD, to the network, to the monitor, to t-shirts] > > -- > William Allen Simpson > Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B > 6A 15 2C 32 >
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
- Original Message - From: William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 am Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True >(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any >telecommunications service. > > [no encryption, no steganography, no remailers, no NAT, no tunnels] > [no Kerberos, no SSH, no IPSec, no SMTPTLS] "place of origin or destination" could mean street address, not IP address or email address. In the context of the rest of the law, it is likely they meant physical location. Especially since it refers to "service" and not just "telecommunications". KL
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote: > I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business > plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it? Enforcing your business plan yourself or having uncle same enforce it for you are two different things. Apparently you prefer the latter. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, William Allen Simpson wrote: > As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device is a felony! The law as written would seem to make microsoft windows nt/2k/xp/etc illegal to possess. Perhaps someone can print up a bunch of stickers "Under 750.540c enacted 03/31/2003 it is a felony to possess this software/device" and put them on microsoft windows boxes and hardware routers wherever they appear. Wonder how long it will take for someone to discover michigan government officers committing 1000's of felonies... -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
Rafi I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe not all at once. The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and they would create and debate the issues of network operator BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability of new materials. The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group but the conversations would be very different so I think that two lists might be necessary if they are the same group - but who knows. --- And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a consortium of networking providers really do run the Internet here in North America... and this would be done by creating agreements on what is and is not routed between the members of this little tribunal so to speak. The membership would be limited to a representative to each carrier that was a participant in this program. And all participants would agree to limit their routed protocols to the approved "list". These players would also get to approve those work products developed in the Operations WG as operational standards too. Think this through before you say no. This is the golden opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart beat. Please chew on this last idea for a while before you say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG. Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is until the law figures them out and also these new laws will mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance and auditing capability. Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather that being two steps behind them its better to see them coming and stay two steps ahead. Todd Glassey -Original Message- From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM To: Jared Mauch Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) Hi guys, Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? -- Rafi ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed: JM> JM> JM> Hello, JM> JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know. JM> JM> I can host such a list. JM> JM> - Jared JM> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote: JM> > JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real JM> > issue though and its important to the global operations of JM> > the bigger picture Internet - JM> > [snipped]
RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
You are two days to early. K On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote: > > Rafi > I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe > not all at once. > > The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and > they would create and debate the issues of network operator > BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of > documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to > develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially > security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report > to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability > of new materials. > > The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all > intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group > but the conversations would be very different so I think > that two lists might be necessary if they are the same > group - but who knows. > > --- > > And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a > consortium of networking providers really do run the > Internet here in North America... and this would be done by > creating agreements on what is and is not routed between the > members of this little tribunal so to speak. The membership > would be limited to a representative to each carrier that > was a participant in this program. And all participants > would agree to limit their routed protocols to the approved > "list". These players would also get to approve those work > products developed in the Operations WG as operational > standards too. > > Think this through before you say no. This is the golden > opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it > properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland > Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart > beat. Please chew on this last idea for a while before you > say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This > is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it > should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG. > > Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of > you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is > until the law figures them out and also these new laws will > mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance > and auditing capability. > > Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our > actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as > they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather > that being two steps behind them its better to see them > coming and stay two steps ahead. > > Todd Glassey > > -Original Message- > From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM > To: Jared Mauch > Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too > True) > > > Hi guys, > > > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? > > > -- > Rafi > > > > ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed: > > JM> > JM> > JM> Hello, > JM> > JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let > me know. > JM> > JM> I can host such a list. > JM> > JM> - Jared > JM> > JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey > wrote: > JM> > > JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a > real > JM> > issue though and its important to the global > operations of > JM> > the bigger picture Internet - > JM> > > [snipped] > >
Wierd...
Title: Wierd... Okay, Here is a wierd one... 69.6.32.100 - allocated by Arin accessed through Hong Kong. H... Global Crossing? do you have a routing issue? Anyway, Later, J 03/30/03 22:14:24 Fast traceroute 69.6.32.100 Trace 69.6.32.100 ... 1 10.129.32.1 40ms 50ms 30ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 2 172.22.32.1 20ms 90ms 20ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 3 172.22.32.106 21ms 10ms 10ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 4 12.124.58.105 20ms 40ms 70ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 5 12.123.21.78 50ms 40ms 50ms TTL: 0 (gbr6-p80.attga.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 6 12.122.12.25 20ms 40ms 70ms TTL: 0 (tbr1-p013601.attga.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 7 No Response * * * 8 12.123.9.53 60ms 30ms 40ms TTL: 0 (ggr1-p370.wswdc.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 9 208.51.74.181 30ms 50ms 30ms TTL: 0 (so2-1-0-622M.br1.WDC2.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 10 208.178.174.53 50ms 31ms 40ms TTL: 0 (pos2-0-155M.cr1.WDC2.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 11 203.192.134.118 330ms 230ms 240ms TTL: 0 (so1-0-0-622M.cr2.HKG1.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 12 203.192.134.126 271ms 260ms 230ms TTL: 0 (so1-0-0-622M.ar1.HKG1.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 13 203.192.137.154 300ms 230ms 291ms TTL: 0 (iAdvantage2.ge-0-1-0-878-1000m.ar1.HKG1.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 14 69.6.1.3 260ms 290ms 251ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 15 No Response * * * 16 No Response * * * 17 No Response * * * 18 No Response * * * 19 No Response * * * 20 No Response * * * 21 No Response * * * 22 No Response * * * 23 No Response * * * 24 No Response * * * 25 No Response * * * 26 No Response * * * 27 No Response * * * 28 No Response * * * 29 No Response * * *
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
William Allen Simpson wrote: ...snip...snip... (a) “Telecommunications” and “telecommunications service” mean any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or reception of signs, data, images, signals, writings, sounds, or other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any nature over any telecommunications system by any method, including, but not limited to, electronic, electromagnetic, magnetic, optical, photo-optical, digital, or analog technologies. [everything from a DVD, to the network, to the monitor, to t-shirts] Sounds like I better start charging my neighbors a $0.01/month :-) == bep
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
Jack Bates wrote: Dan Hollis wrote: Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense. It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs. They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks could cut their rates, so that small networks could cut their rates, so that @home can have service for $50/mo. If @home uses full bandwidth, and each of the networks steps up to meet the bandwidth, either a) @home gets billed no less than 4 times as much or b) any network that doesn't step up pricing goes into Chapter 11. In addition, it's questionable if the overall network infrastructure can handle that amount of throughput. 1.5Mb/s to the house sounds so wonderful, but at $50/mo, it's not really feasible without a lot of oversell. People traditionally base oversell per computer connection (taken from dialup overselling). I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it? Then charge what it really costs. Look, I'm buying transit from an ISP. You know, moving bits. This kind of legislation is as absurd as telling me what devices I'm allowed to view my DVD's on, listen to my CD's on, or how I should watch a movie because it happens to come on a little silver disk vs a dark stream of tape. If ISPs have to resort to these kind of tactics to preserve "value" of their services, perhaps they need to find a way to offer more "value" than they do today. As for the security aspects, I have privacy of communication when I put a letter into an envelope. Just because I'm communicating electronically doesn't mean I've abdicated that right. == bep
Internic whois
Can someone in charge of Internic fix their whois search page to no longer reference TLDs they don't handle (page last updated Oct 2001): http://www.internic.net/whois.html "Whois Search Whois (.aero, .arpa, .biz, .com, .coop, .edu, .info, .int, .museum, .net, and .org):" Thanks, Hank
