RE: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On a more practical/technical level, I'm interested in how French ISPs that worked on the plan to implement it on their networks? http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/conferen/albanel/rapportol ivennes231107.pdf I couldn't get a good copy from that URL but I did manage to get one from http://www.fluctuat.net/articles/IMG/pdf/rapport-olivennes.pdf First, they start out by saying on page 12 that they are persuaded that stronger disincentives for pirating content have to be organised in a realistic and pragmatic way. There is no unique solution whose success is assured. It is an illusion to consider that all forms of piracy on the Internet can be stopped. Nevertheless it is necessary to communicate to the younger members of the public that free (as in beer) and illegal costlessness has a cost. (Note that French has a word meaning costlessness that is usually translated as free). They go on to talk about a variety of technical measures which they recognize pirates can pervert. They want to make it harder to accidentally pirate stuff. They talk about go after the uploader of content, not the downloader. Elsewhere in the document they get agreement from the industry to change their behavior as well, such as watermarking content, which presumably makes it easier to filter pirated content but leave the Linux ISO torrents alone. Under filtering of sites and protocols they mention that this can be legally possible in certain specific circumstances. Under filtering of files they talk about servers, where ISPs already will delete or block downloads of pirated files. The appendices (annexes) go into more technical details. I didn't read all 44 pages of this report but it is fairly balanced and they clearly talked to ISPs as well as content owners. I get the sense that a lot of this is alread best practices but is probably not all that well documented in the sense that there isn't a Piracy Prevention Best Practices document that most ISPs try to adhere to. If someone wanted to produce such a document, extracting the technical bits from this report would make a reasonable working draft. Given that operationally, there are no magic bullets for most things, we have to make do with a set of best practices, each of which deals with one aspect of the problem. I wonder why we don't see more support for documenting these best practices through something like this wiki http://bestpractices.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page which was set up by a NANOG member a while back. --Michael Dillon
Re: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote: In my view, it's the responsibility of everyone on the net to do whatever they can to squelch the first. But they have no obligations at all when it comes to the second -- that way lies the slippery slope of content policing and censorship. The technical tools and techniques available to ISPs are essentially the same regardless of the type of use being targetted. So reviewing sets of documents from various groups for technical capabilities, how can ISPs implement them? Are there any technical capabilities available which haven't been included? Are there technical capabilities included which aren't really feasible? 1. Traceability and impersonation of identifiers 2. Accountability and dynamic changes of identifiers 3. Availability and interference with other communications 4. Confidentialty and privacy of communications 5. Integrity and changes to communications 6. Alertability and status of communications 7. Acceptability and choosing which communications
Re: [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote: I'd like to draw attention to nanog AUP, particularly #6: Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited. While the regulation of internet by filtering bad traffic is clearly political and/or legal, I do think the *technical* implication of it are very much on-topic. After all, once this happens, we as network operators will be responsible for the filtering. With all due respect, Alex and the rest of the MLC, I believe AUP #6 (aka, the Ostrich Clause) should be amended. Operational folks must be involved in the nontechnical processes that impact their daily jobs, or one day you will find that operations will be impossible due to bone-headed regulations that might have been stopped had knowledgeable operational people spoken up soon enough. And while I realize this belongs more on nanog-futures, this thought should at least see the light of day on the main nanog list first. So I guess I'll subscribe to nanog-futures so that I can participate in what may become a lively discussion over there on the Ostrich Clause. I encourage everyone else who might be interested in joining this discussion to do so as well. I do not intend to post further on this subject on this list; no warning necessary. -- Lamar Owen Chief Information Officer Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
XO outage in minneapolis?
Anyone having XO problems in Minneapolis? We have an OC-3 down, all services. - Erik
Any earthlink mail admins?
I can't get thru via their abuse. Your email servers have been pounding us (theworld.com / std.com) with a non-stop dictionary attack for about a week. Logs available upon request. Nov 28 13:37:46 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart1 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:49 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart10 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:53 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart2 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:56 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart3 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:59 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart4 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] ...etc etc etc... -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
[no subject]
unsubscribe
RE: Any earthlink mail admins?
I found their NOC line: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01583.html Their business tech support line is 888-698-4357, they might be able to direct you to the right person. Also: http://kb.earthlink.net/case.asp?article=89393 I know it's lame, but as a last resort you might also want to try their chat feature on their support site. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry Shein Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:40 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Any earthlink mail admins? I can't get thru via their abuse. Your email servers have been pounding us (theworld.com / std.com) with a non-stop dictionary attack for about a week. Logs available upon request. Nov 28 13:37:46 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart1 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:49 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart10 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:53 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart2 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:56 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart3 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] Nov 28 13:37:59 pcls5 sendmail[26487]: NOUSER: jbart4 relay=elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61] ...etc etc etc... -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
