RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Jeff, In a nutshell you're saying do nothing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Ogden Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote: However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more than empty threats. Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? A polite letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. Just to state the obvious, no one is authorized to represent NANOG in this fashion, not even folks here at Merit. NANOG isn't a decision making organization. NANOG isn't something that can take actions (other than holding a few meetings each year and managing this e-mail list). Individuals and organizations that participate in NANOG can take actions, but not in NANOG's name. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that lawyers should be consulted before taking individual or coordinated action of the sort being suggested against another organization. Of course IPSs do take action against individuals or organizations all of the time, but they need to do that based on policies and procedures that take into account their obligations to their customers as well as their obligations under the law. As an end user I really don't want my ISP to make decisions about who is allowed to communicate with me or who I am allowed to communicate with except when those decisions are based on policies designed to protect me or others from serious problems (DDOS attacks and the like), even then I want those policies to be written and available so I can review them, and I want them to be applied fairly. As an ISP I really don't want my upstream ISPs to make decisions about who is allowed to communicate with my network or who my network is allowed to communicate with except under the conditions outlined in my agreements with those ISPs. This is important to me if I am in turn going to be able to meet my obligations to my own end users. So, I really don't want the RIAA to tell me or my upstreams who I can't communicate with, but neither do I want my upstreams to tell me that I can't communicate with the RIAA or the labels if I (or really my customers) want to do so. -Jeff Ogden Merit Network At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote: However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more than empty threats. Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? A polite letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J.A. Terranson Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM To: Nigel Clarke Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any access... And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. Let the money do the work. Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right!
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any access... http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819riaa.php Too bad it's just a small ISP. - Joost ___ music-bar mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/music-bar
Controlling RIAA's hired guns
I know that this has somewhat thoroughly discussed here as of late, but when has it ever been acceptable to allow hackers to break into a customer's computer? I thought that abuse and security teams were designed to stop this type of thing. -- Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer Forever Networks
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Start now, do whatever it takes. Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? NANOG should not sit on this. Trust me, if RIAA tried to function without email and internet access for a day or two I think they would get the message. Nigel -Original Message- From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:30 PM To: Nigel Clarke Cc: Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any access... And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. I suppose if you want symbolism, you can host -l riaa.com and wack their wcom webserver and other stuff at att, but I'd harly call that productive. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more than empty threats. Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? A polite letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J.A. Terranson Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM To: Nigel Clarke Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any access... And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. Let the money do the work. Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right!
RE: FORGET THE LETTERS (was RE: Eat this RIAA)
To be perfectly honest, I could care less about any letters. It might be a good idea to follow in the footsteps of Informationwave and just take action. CLARKE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 8:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: $12,000 per person registration fee (was RE: Eat this RIAA) On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote: However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more than empty threats. Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? A polite letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. The RIAA's annual budget is roughly $18 million. That pays for lawyers and other stuff which goes into writing polite letters. To raise that much money Merit would need to charge about $12,000 per person per NANOG meeting. People complain the current $300 registration fee is too much. NANOG is not a lobbying organization. There are other several organizations (and mailing lists) you may want to consider instead, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ You can also write your elected representatives for the price of a postage stamp. Some congress critters even accept e-mail now.
Re: Certification or College degrees?
IMO: Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies. Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS? Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for Network Engineers. What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter. Cisco's certification program has effected the entire IT community. Their CCIE's are required to recertify every few years, thus forcing them to stay true to the Cisco lifestyle. I've met some CCIE's who don't know any programming languages or any experience with Unix. It's clear that they are one dimensional and unfocused. Why study the same thing over and over? Do you really have X amount of years experience, or do you have 1 years experience X times? Think about it. If you have been in the field for over 5 years and someone new to the industry by way of certification can handle your work load, that is a serious problem. If anything certs should be used as a stepping stone or advancement to new technologies or areas. Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for. --- Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Certification or College degrees?
If I have learned anything at all during the course of this recession is that you have to be diverse. Organizations are looking for individuals with a wide range of skills. This includes CCIE's. I know a few who aren't working right now. It's not due to there lack of skill or knowledge, it's there limited skill set. The story of the Cisco CCIE's will be the same as the IBM/SNA mainframe gurus. Great in their day, useless in the future. --- Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Reliability Engineering
Try the The Art of Testing Network Systems ISBN: 0-471-13223-3 --- Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
