RE: DDOS-Guard [was: Parler]
This one ended up in Junk. I guess you pasted too much domain names with "Junk" behaviours. đ I removed the domain names from this reply. Interesting list though. Thanks for sharing. Any others got that in their junk? Jean St-Laurent CISSP #634103 ddosTest me security inc site: https://ddostest.me email: j...@ddostest.me -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec Sent: January 21, 2021 8:02 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: DDOS-Guard [was: Parler] About this network: On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 01:27:10PM -0800, William Herrin wrote: [snip] > inetnum: 190.115.16.0/20 > status: allocated > aut-num: AS262254 > owner: DDOS-GUARD CORP. > ownerid: BZ-DALT-LACNIC > responsible: Evgeniy Marchenko > address: 1/2Miles Northern Highway, --, -- > address: -- - Belize - BZ [snip] I've taken a look at this /20 and recommend either firewalling it (bidrectionally) or null-routing it. It's loaded with scammy domains, many of which are typosquatting on Hulu, Roku, Netgear, ATT, Facebook, Norton, AOL, HP, Canon, SBC, Epson, Bitdefender, Rand-McNally, Roadrunner, McAfee, Magellan, Office365, Tomtom, Garmin, Webroot, Brother, Belkin, Linksys, and probably some others that I overlooked while eyeballing the list. Appended below is a partial list of domains. All of these either (a) are using nameservers in that /20 or (b) have A records that resolve to that /20 or (c) both, as of when I checked this week. Notes: (1) this list is likely only a subset of what's actually there and (2) h/t to Brian Krebs for cataloging some of these in a blog post. ---rsk
Re: Parler
Eric Kuhnke wrote: Googling "Rob Monster Epik" will tell you just about everything you need to know about that organization. It seems to me that that he is on the same side as Merkel means the problem is not political one of right or left but that GAFA administration is the fundamental evil. To be purely technically, cloud is an intelligent intermediate entity totally against the E2E principle and, thus, is the fundamental evil. Masataka Ohta
Re: Parler
Googling "Rob Monster Epik" will tell you just about everything you need to know about that organization. On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:42 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around > their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from > today on parler's new host: > > $ dig parler.com ns > ... > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. > ... > ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 > > $ whois 52.55.168.70 > ... > OrgName:Amazon Technologies Inc. > > and for the curious, ns4.epik.com is hosted by an Epik sub, but from a > cursory glance appears to be single-homed to > CDN77, which is vaguely surprising to me. > > Matt > > On 1/10/21 3:23 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in > > search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the > > proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. > > > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ > > > > Regards, > > Bill HErrin > > >
Re: Parler
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:41 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > $ dig parler.com ns > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. Looks like Parler managed to bring up a placeholder web site via a Belize (LACNIC) registered IP address managed by someone with a Russian email address. nslookup parler.com Name: parler.com Address: 190.115.31.151 whois 190.115.31.151 inetnum: 190.115.16.0/20 status: allocated aut-num: AS262254 owner: DDOS-GUARD CORP. ownerid: BZ-DALT-LACNIC responsible: Evgeniy Marchenko address: 1/2Miles Northern Highway, --, -- address: -- - Belize - BZ country: BZ phone: +7 928 2797045 owner-c: HUN8 tech-c: HUN8 abuse-c: HUN8 nic-hdl: HUN8 person: Huan Nadas e-mail: xeng...@mail.ru address: Avenue Jorge Perez Concha, 712, - address: 090511 - Guayaquil - country: EC phone: +7 9282797045 []
Re: Re Parler
Mike Bolitho wrote: List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. No lawyers are required to figure out what's going on with parler.com resolves to be 0.0.0.0, which has a lot to do with network operations, implication of which is hard to be understood by lawyers, for which there should be no useful case information. And as Jay said, it's getting stupid. That parler.com resolves to be 0.0.0.0 is, certainly, stupid. Masataka Ohta
Re: Re Parler
On 1/14/21 4:09 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote: And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge. List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay said, it's getting stupid. I second the motion. I've been following this issue very closely since the start on what might be called Legal Twitter (actual attorneys practicing actual law at the Federal level in civil, criminal, appellate, constitutional and intellectual property cases) and it's become painfully clear that 98% of the people replying to this topic here have 1) no idea what they're talking about, and 2) a more- and more-obvious political/philosophical agenda of one stripe or another I've been wholesale deleting for days now. Put a stake in 'er, Jim, she's dead. - John --
Re: Re Parler
> > And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, > before > anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge. List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay said, it's getting stupid. - Mike Bolitho On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:00 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Mel Beckman" > > > John, > > > > Whatâs your point? Are you saying that itâs OK for an ISP to break > antitrust > > laws for a political cause? > > No, Mel. > > In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection > *are > not political causes*, and I am adding that hitching your star to that > wagon > may shorten your career as much as it's shortening the careers of the > people > who were in Washington. > > And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, > before > anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge. > > Cheers, > -- jra > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 >
Re: Re Parler
- Original Message - > From: "Mel Beckman" > John, > > Whatâs your point? Are you saying that itâs OK for an ISP to break antitrust > laws for a political cause? No, Mel. In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection *are not political causes*, and I am adding that hitching your star to that wagon may shorten your career as much as it's shortening the careers of the people who were in Washington. And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Re Parler
John, Whatâs your point? Are you saying that itâs OK for an ISP to break antitrust laws for a political cause? To bring this discussion back into the realm of operational discussions, shouldnât we be building infrastructure that has the audit and change management components needed to detect ill-advised actions like Amazonâs? I recently read that Theranos IT conveniently âlost the keysâ to the encrypted database files that are key evidence in the DOJâs fraud case against them. Clearly there is an ethical case for us as technologists to treat these events in a non-partisan way. The days of âI was just following ordersâ are long gone. -mel > On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:47 PM, John Levine wrote: > > ï»żIn article <70e9-8be1-483c-8e49-e9cda6b4a...@beckman.org> you write: >> Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three >> companies would simultaneously pull the plug on >> their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain >> to a judge. > > Aw, come on. Judges have even beeen known to read the papers or turn on the > TV > now and then. > > R's, > John
Re: Re Parler
In article <70e9-8be1-483c-8e49-e9cda6b4a...@beckman.org> you write: >Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies >would simultaneously pull the plug on >their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to >a judge. Aw, come on. Judges have even beeen known to read the papers or turn on the TV now and then. R's, John
Re: Parler
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:27:12PM +0100, Bryan Holloway wrote: > There's a pretty big difference between imparting knowledge and inciting > violence. Not to mention it is was a COINTELPRO work product. -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
Re: Re Parler and its very underprepared attorney
> Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during > that hearing Parler's attorney: > > - forgot the name of Parler's CEO > > - stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology > because he's not on social media > > - admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to > update his PACER account This is because, if reports can be believed, Parler's own lawyers abandoned ship a few days ago. > I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish > to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should > actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the > complaint (and serving them). It's actually not uncommon to include unnamed defendants - however, in order to do so, and in order to reserve the ability, one needs to include in the list of defendants something like "And Does 1-10', or such (or request leave to amend the complaint). Given everything everything, I'd say it's pretty clear that this attorney took the case at the 11th hour. He is a patent and other IP issues attorney - which this case is not. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)ultant Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: Re Parler
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:01:19AM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote: > This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is > likely) The first hearing in this case was held today. Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during that hearing Parler's attorney: - forgot the name of Parler's CEO - stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology because he's not on social media - admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to update his PACER account This is the same attorney who filed Parler's complaint -- the one that names Twitter as a defendant in section 5 while omitting them from the title page of the complaint. Here, look for yourself: PARLER LLC v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.1.0.pdf Read the first sentence of section 5. It's on page 3. Oh heck, let me save you the trouble: "Thus, AWS is in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter." I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the complaint (and serving them). ---rsk
Re: Re Parler
Interesting ! Money can buy many things đ Best Ge > Le 14 janv. 2021 Ă 20:43, Rod Beck a Ă©crit : > > Folks, > > There is a political dimension here. Sedition. Parlet is a hornets nest of > right wing extremism. > > The courts will take that into account. > > Moreover, Parlet's financial resources will evaporate very quickly and with > it any lawsuit. > > I think it is time to bury this issue as a discussion topic. > > Regards, > > Roderick. > > > > > > From: NANOG on > behalf of Keith Medcalf > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM > To: Mel Beckman ; adamv0...@netconsultings.com > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: Re Parler > > > On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman wrote: > > >I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because > >I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which Iâve verified is identical to > >the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts > >managed to get the pages out of order). > > >And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of > >termination. Amazon says they are calling this a âsuspensionâ, but thatâs > >weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parlerâs > >data so that Parler could âmove to another provider.â You would only do > >that in a termination. > > >Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three > >companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a > >single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. > > >Right now I think Amazonâs safest escape from this mess is to restore > >Parlorâs services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do > >business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance > >notice (Parler learned of Amazonâs termination from the news, since > >Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). > > >However you look at this, Amazonâs actions have huge implications for > >anyone using them for operational networking. > > This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is > likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their > Fraudulent business practices. > > Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because > they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business > Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid > customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently > UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been > demonstrated as fact. > > -- > Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved > with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
Re: Re Parler
Folks, There is a political dimension here. Sedition. Parlet is a hornets nest of right wing extremism. The courts will take that into account. Moreover, Parlet's financial resources will evaporate very quickly and with it any lawsuit. I think it is time to bury this issue as a discussion topic. Regards, Roderick. From: NANOG on behalf of Keith Medcalf Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM To: Mel Beckman ; adamv0...@netconsultings.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Re Parler On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman wrote: >I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because >I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which Iâve verified is identical to >the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts >managed to get the pages out of order). >And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of >termination. Amazon says they are calling this a âsuspensionâ, but thatâs >weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parlerâs >data so that Parler could âmove to another provider.â You would only do >that in a termination. >Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three >companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a >single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. >Right now I think Amazonâs safest escape from this mess is to restore >Parlorâs services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do >business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance >notice (Parler learned of Amazonâs termination from the news, since >Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). >However you look at this, Amazonâs actions have huge implications for >anyone using them for operational networking. This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices. Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
RE: Parler
Hi Matt, Thatâs not how it would be done. There is an EPP status serverHold (or, if issued by the registrar, clientHold), which removes a domain from DNS. This is used after arbitration or court decisions and for cases of abuse. I doubt however that Verisign would suspend Parlerâs domain. Matthias Merkel Staclar, Inc. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Matt Erculiani Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2021 17:46 To: aheb...@pubnix.net Cc: nanog@nanog.org list Subject: Re: Parler Is there a remote possibility here that Verisign might say "yeah, we're gonna glue this domain down to 0.0.0.0 and not allow registration"? Is there any precedent for this? Would seem like a game of whack-a-mole that anyone would want to avoid. Really that would seem like the only way to ratchet up the "internet death penalty" even further at this point, barring any major ISPs coming out and saying they'll block it from transiting their networks. Again, more whack-a-mole, and arguably a more serious precedent to set as Verisign isn't the only TLD registrar. -Matt On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:24 AM Alain Hebert mailto:aheb...@pubnix.net>> wrote: Hi, This is just their DNS, parler.com<http://parler.com> itself returns to 0.0.0.0 now. - Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net<mailto:aheb...@pubnix.net> PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 1/14/21 12:02 AM, Valdis KlÄtnieks wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said: In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from today on parler's new host: $ dig parler.com<http://parler.com> ns ... parler.com<http://parler.com>. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com<http://ns4.epik.com>. parler.com<http://parler.com>. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com<http://ns3.epik.com>. ... ns3.epik.com<http://ns3.epik.com>. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off. -- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN
RE: Re Parler
The wiki (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230) page has this > The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection > from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the > removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, > even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good > faith. On 14 January 2021 3:37:41 pm IST, Keith Medcalf wrote: > >I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication >Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being >responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they >were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an >agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that >provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content >provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio? > >Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, >that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a >prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and >that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or >damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. > >The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that >would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such >facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held >liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed >simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be >used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. > >First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the >mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. > >But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of >low ability and unable to make the case required. > >-- >Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is >paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. > >>-Original Message- >>From: NANOG On Behalf Of >>Jeff P >>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 >>To: nanog@nanog.org >>Subject: Re Parler >> >>ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: >> >>https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama >>zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf >> >>JeffP >>je...@jeffp.us <mailto:je...@jeffp.us> >> >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Re Parler
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM wrote: > (b) Termination for Cause. > (i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of > notice It's fairly clear from Amazon's communications that this is their basis for terminating Parler. They began notifying Parler in September that Parler's content moderation efforts were not acceptable, offered examples and used progressively stronger language to express their dissatisfaction with Parler's remedies. I suppose it remains to be seen whether a court will accept the argument but there's no need to speculate about what their argument is. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Re Parler
   Good to here since you're either part of:       . Parler legal team;       . Amazon legal team;       . Pervue of all the communication between both corporation;    ... or just a Parler user ... is my guess. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 1/14/21 1:01 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman wrote: I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which Iâve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order). And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a âsuspensionâ, but thatâs weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parlerâs data so that Parler could âmove to another provider.â You would only do that in a termination. Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. Right now I think Amazonâs safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlorâs services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazonâs termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). However you look at this, Amazonâs actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking. This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices. Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.
RE: Re Parler
Shut , so the boilerplate termination of agreement for any reason with 30 day notice was indeed part of the contract? -so they forgot to bump the default up I guess, but anyways wouldn't help them either way. Was there anything else in the contract that would allow amazon to terminate the contract in less than 30days (termination for cause maybe)? (b) Termination for Cause. (i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice -30 days again,... (ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6 <- 6. Temporary Suspension. -I guess that's what you was referring to right? (B) if our relationship with a third-party partner who provides software or other technology we use to provide the Service Offerings expires, terminates or requires us to change the way we provide the software or other technology as part of the Services -this would affect everybody on the platform hard to justify singling out one customer (C) in order to comply with the law or requests of governmental entities. -also not the case right? Section 6: 6. Temporary Suspension. 6.1 Generally. We may suspend your or any End Userâs right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we determine: (a) your or an End Userâs use of the Service Offerings (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, (ii) could adversely impact our systems, the Service Offerings or the systems or Content of any other AWS customer, (iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to liability, or (iv) could be fraudulent; (b) you are, or any End User is, in breach of this Agreement; (c) you are in breach of your payment obligations under Section 5; or (d) you have ceased to operate in the ordinary course, made an assignment for the benefit of creditors or similar disposition of your assets, or become the subject of any bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation, dissolution or similar proceeding. So if AWS acted according to section 6 then I guess only point (a) options are remotely plausible, but I guess any of the points there would be hard to proof. In any case it's a pretty powerful tool to have in a contract this section 6. (especially with subsection (a) which seem to provide a lot of options for interpretation and manoeuvring space) adam -Original Message- From: Mel Beckman Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 5:02 PM To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com Cc: Keith Medcalf ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Re Parler I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which Iâve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order). And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a âsuspensionâ, but thatâs weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parlerâs data so that Parler could âmove to another provider.â You would only do that in a termination. Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. Right now I think Amazonâs safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlorâs services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazonâs termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). However you look at this, Amazonâs actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking. -mel > On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:48 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > > ï»ż >> >> Medcalf >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM >> >> >>> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: >>> >>> https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ >>> 7.2 Termination. >>> (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement >>> for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for >>> all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We >>> may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at >>> least 30 daysâ advance notice. >> >> How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect? > No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the > Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing > contents of the contract. > > &g
RE: Re Parler
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman wrote: >I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because >I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which Iâve verified is identical to >the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts >managed to get the pages out of order). >And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of >termination. Amazon says they are calling this a âsuspensionâ, but thatâs >weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parlerâs >data so that Parler could âmove to another provider.â You would only do >that in a termination. >Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three >companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a >single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. >Right now I think Amazonâs safest escape from this mess is to restore >Parlorâs services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do >business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance >notice (Parler learned of Amazonâs termination from the news, since >Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). >However you look at this, Amazonâs actions have huge implications for >anyone using them for operational networking. This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices. Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
Re: Re Parler
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which Iâve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order). And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a âsuspensionâ, but thatâs weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parlerâs data so that Parler could âmove to another provider.â You would only do that in a termination. Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. Right now I think Amazonâs safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlorâs services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazonâs termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). However you look at this, Amazonâs actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking. -mel > On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:48 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > > ï»ż >> >> Medcalf >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM >> >> >>> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: >>> >>> https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ >>> 7.2 Termination. >>> (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for >>> any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all >>> Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may >>> terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 >>> daysâ advance notice. >> >> How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect? > No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the > Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing > contents of the contract. > > > >>> With regards to business continuity, >> >>> My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts >>> (and 30 days is pretty standard as well), >> >> I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. > Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs. > > >> >>> If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your >>> support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and >>> you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in >>> 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore. >> >> So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if >> Cisco >> no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely >> zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now >> free). > Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) > stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire). > The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product > onto something else in time. > >> Of >> course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all >> that is >> relevant. >> > And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks > usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors. > > > >>> Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes >>> under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do >>> you have contractual terms governing this case? >> >>> What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the >>> vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually >>> legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc.. >> >> Yes. > Hmm, that doesnât feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting > a car the rental company goes under I now own the car? > I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and > when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as > well? > (i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, > cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore). > > adam >
Re: Parler
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:47 AM Matt Erculiani wrote: > Is there a remote possibility here that Verisign might say "yeah, we're gonna > glue this domain down to 0.0.0.0 and not allow registration"? Absent a court order? No, not a chance. Verisign is not parler's registrar. They'd be inviting twelve different kinds of liability interfering without government sanction. Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: Parler
Is there a remote possibility here that Verisign might say "yeah, we're gonna glue this domain down to 0.0.0.0 and not allow registration"? Is there any precedent for this? Would seem like a game of whack-a-mole that anyone would want to avoid. Really that would seem like the only way to ratchet up the "internet death penalty" even further at this point, barring any major ISPs coming out and saying they'll block it from transiting their networks. Again, more whack-a-mole, and arguably a more serious precedent to set as Verisign isn't the only TLD registrar. -Matt On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:24 AM Alain Hebert wrote: > Hi, > > This is just their DNS, parler.com itself returns to 0.0.0.0 now. > > - > Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net > PubNIX Inc. > 50 boul. St-Charles > P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 > Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 > > On 1/14/21 12:02 AM, Valdis KlÄtnieks wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said: > > In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their > enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from > today on parler's new host: > > $ dig parler.com ns > ...parler.com.300 IN NS > ns4.epik.com.parler.com.300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. > ...ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 > > It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and > the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting > agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off. > > > -- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN
Re: Parler
God I miss that man! On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:28 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - > > 2. Where do we expect legit insurrections to communicate? Should > > AWS/Facebook/Twitter boot those calling for violent uprisings in Hong > Kong > > (for example). > > > > I suppose #2 is simply one mans freedom fighter is another criminal. > > https://youtu.be/isMm2vF4uFs?t=281 > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 >
RE: Re Parler
> Medcalf > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM > > > On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > > >https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ > >7.2 Termination. > >(a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for > >any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all > >Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may > >terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 > >daysâ advance notice. > > How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect? No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing contents of the contract. > >With regards to business continuity, > > >My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts > >(and 30 days is pretty standard as well), > > I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs. > > >If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your > >support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and > >you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in > >2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore. > > So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if > Cisco > no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely > zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free). Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire). The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product onto something else in time. > Of > course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that > is > relevant. > And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors. > >Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes > >under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do > >you have contractual terms governing this case? > > >What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the > >vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually > >legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc.. > > Yes. Hmm, that doesnât feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting a car the rental company goes under I now own the car? I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as well? (i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore). adam
Re: Parler
* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Mon 11 Jan 2021, 13:56 CET]: Eric S. Raymond wrote on 11/01/2021 00:00: Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part; I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted. this is quite an innovative level of speculation. Care to provide sources? Of course he hasn't. And Amazon's response filing clearly demonstrates that he was talking out of his ass. -- Niels.
Re: Parler
   Hi,    This is just their DNS, parler.com itself returns to 0.0.0.0 now. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 1/14/21 12:02 AM, Valdis KlÄtnieks wrote: On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said: In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from today on parler's new host: $ dig parler.com ns ... parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. ... ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off.
RE: Re Parler
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: >https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ >7.2 Termination. >(a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any >reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services >for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this >Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 daysâ advance >notice. How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect? That is an assumption of fact not in evidence. Furthermore, that provision requires at least 30 days notice. If that clause was in effect AND it was used as you suggest THEN UNLESS at least 30 days notice was given the plaintiff Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or aggravated/punitive damages for Amazon's violation of the contract terms. >How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section >230? It does not. >See AWS can claim they terminated the contract because it was sunny >outside and they just felt like it, in other words using section 7.2 (a) >of their customer agreement. Why anyone in their right mind would enter into such a contract is beyond my ken and would only be done by a lunatic. >With regards to business continuity, >My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts >(and 30 days is pretty standard as well), I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. Plus you are also claiming that a "contract of adhesion" is a valid contract, which it is not (at least not in countries with rational legal systems). >I know we negotiated longer advance notices with some of our vendors, but >I'm actually not sure what it says on our contracts with say big router >vendors? That is your own business issue and as a party to the contract, you are free to negotiate contract terms as you please. >Do you folks? >If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your >support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and >you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 >months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore. So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free). Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that is relevant. >Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under >(yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have >contractual terms governing this case? Unless you are stupid, you do. However in my experience there is a large quantity of stupid people in the world. >What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the >vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually >legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc.. Yes. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
RE: Re Parler
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ 7.2 Termination. (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 daysâ advance notice. How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section 230? See AWS can claim they terminated the contract because it was sunny outside and they just felt like it, in other words using section 7.2 (a) of their customer agreement. With regards to business continuity, My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well), I know we negotiated longer advance notices with some of our vendors, but I'm actually not sure what it says on our contracts with say big router vendors? Do you folks? If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore. Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case? What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc.. adam -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Keith Medcalf Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:08 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Re Parler I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio? Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. >-Original Message- >From: NANOG On Behalf Of >Jeff P >Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re Parler > >ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: > >https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_A >ma zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf > >JeffP >je...@jeffp.us <mailto:je...@jeffp.us> > >
RE: Re Parler
I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio? Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. >-Original Message- >From: NANOG On Behalf Of >Jeff P >Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re Parler > >ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: > >https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama >zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf > >JeffP >je...@jeffp.us <mailto:je...@jeffp.us> > >
RE: Parler
They may just be a reseller, but they are claiming to be themselves (although I've never heard of epik until this week), the whois record seems to hit all the right buttons to indicate they are a registrar and dns: Â Â $ whois parler.com | grep -i epik [Redirected to whois.epik.com] [Querying whois.epik.com] [whois.epik.com] Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.epik.com Registrar URL: http://www.epik.com Registrar: Epik, Inc. Registrar Abuse Contact Email: ab...@epik.com Name Server: NS3.EPIK.COM Name Server: NS4.EPIK.COM Â Â Â Â I'm not sure I agree with characterizing DNS hosting as a registrar service. It makes sense to sell them together but they're not classically the same thing. Epik is also entangled with Clouthub which I hear is where Trump landed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ Â
Re: Parler
Errr, sorry, typing on my phone. I should have included a â(and, thus, presumably the current DNS hosting returning dummy A records is a temporary thing)â. I presume they transferred the domain and set up some temporary DNS hosting through Epik, likely because, as someone else pointed out, it can avoid longer negative caching while they work on a real hosting deal. Matt > On Jan 14, 2021, at 00:29, William Herrin wrote: > > ï»żOn Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM Matt Corallo wrote: >> Sure, I just found it marginally comical that amazon, after making a big >> stink about kicking them off, is still providing them service, even if itâs >> one-hop indirect. That said, someone else suggested that Epik is denying >> that they will host the site, only providing registrar services for the >> domain, so itâs not as comparable as I understood it to be. > > Hi Matt, > > I'm not sure I agree with characterizing DNS hosting as a registrar > service. It makes sense to sell them together but they're not > classically the same thing. > > Epik is also entangled with Clouthub which I hear is where Trump landed. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > Sure, I just found it marginally comical that amazon, after making a big > stink about kicking them off, is still providing them service, even if itâs > one-hop indirect. That said, someone else suggested that Epik is denying that > they will host the site, only providing registrar services for the domain, so > itâs not as comparable as I understood it to be. Hi Matt, I'm not sure I agree with characterizing DNS hosting as a registrar service. It makes sense to sell them together but they're not classically the same thing. Epik is also entangled with Clouthub which I hear is where Trump landed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
Sure, I just found it marginally comical that amazon, after making a big stink about kicking them off, is still providing them service, even if itâs one-hop indirect. That said, someone else suggested that Epik is denying that they will host the site, only providing registrar services for the domain, so itâs not as comparable as I understood it to be. Matt > On Jan 14, 2021, at 00:10, William Herrin wrote: > > ï»żOn Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:02 PM Valdis KlÄtnieks > wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said: >>> parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. >>> parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. >>> ... >>> ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 >> >> It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and >> the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting >> agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off. > > No, they were hosted on Route53 back on Sunday. Now they're hosted by > Epik which implements their own DNS servers using the AWS > infrastructure. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
RE: Parler
I think its more probable to say that AWS didn't even know about this. As far as I can see, epik is just another AWS customer who spun up an instance and is hosting dns on that instance. I doubt AWS is watching customers at a level that would detect this. But, I'm also sure that AWS has since caught wind of this and is watching closely. I just checked, and both listed servers are returning an A record for parler, although its bogus info (probably meant as a place holder with low TTL so no one caches an nxdomain).    > > $ dig parler.com ns > ... > parler.com.300INNSns4.epik.com. > parler.com.300INNSns3.epik.com. > ... > ns3.epik.com.108450INA52.55.168.70 It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off.
Re: Parler
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:02 PM Valdis KlÄtnieks wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said: > > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. > > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. > > ... > > ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 > > It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and > the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting > agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off. No, they were hosted on Route53 back on Sunday. Now they're hosted by Epik which implements their own DNS servers using the AWS infrastructure. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said: > In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their > enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from > today on parler's new host: > > $ dig parler.com ns > ... > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. > ... > ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off. pgp0i8q7FGMwX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Parler
- Original Message - > From: "esr" > sro...@ronan-online.com : >> >> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house >> and >> external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, >> less >> I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldnât that same principal >> apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter? > > Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part; > I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted. Well, this oughtta be fun. ESR is on the "yes, that is what 230 says" side, and John Levine -- with what looked to me like good arguments and references -- is on the "no, that's entirely not what 230 says side. Gentlemen: go to your corners and come out fighting! Well, ok, disagreeing politely. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Parler
- Original Message - > From: "Jay Hennigan" > On 1/10/21 12:40, Matthew Petach wrote: > >> There's easy solutions to the problem--hiring really good engineers >> to write your own AWS-lookalike where you can host whatever content >> you want, hosted in buildings you've built on land you've bought. > > There's also the issue of carrying the packets from those servers to > your audience and from your audience to those servers. In the final analysis, genties and ladelpersons, what we're talking about is the current shape of the Internet Death Penalty. Just in case anyone missed that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Parler
- Original Message - > 2. Where do we expect legit insurrections to communicate? Should > AWS/Facebook/Twitter boot those calling for violent uprisings in Hong Kong > (for example). > > I suppose #2 is simply one mans freedom fighter is another criminal. https://youtu.be/isMm2vF4uFs?t=281 -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: [External] Re: Parler
Ah! I admit I haven't been following the latest in drama-land too closely. I was still under the impression they had a full hosting deal. Guess it'll be interesting to see where they land. Matt On 1/13/21 9:08 PM, Hunter Fuller wrote: I see your point, but I am not sure running the authoritative name servers for a site meets the popular definition of "hosting" them. Epik is currently denying that they are going to host Parler in a traditional sense, though they are the registrar for parler.com. since a couple of days ago. Of course, Amazon could ding Epik for being Parler's registrar, but that would truly be a reach, since they aren't Parler's Web host. -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH Annex B-5 +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:42 PM Matt Corallo wrote: In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from today on parler's new host: $ dig parler.com ns ... parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. ... ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 $ whois 52.55.168.70 ... OrgName:Amazon Technologies Inc. and for the curious, ns4.epik.com is hosted by an Epik sub, but from a cursory glance appears to be single-homed to CDN77, which is vaguely surprising to me. Matt On 1/10/21 3:23 AM, William Herrin wrote: Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ Regards, Bill HErrin
Re: [External] Re: Parler
I see your point, but I am not sure running the authoritative name servers for a site meets the popular definition of "hosting" them. Epik is currently denying that they are going to host Parler in a traditional sense, though they are the registrar for parler.com. since a couple of days ago. Of course, Amazon could ding Epik for being Parler's registrar, but that would truly be a reach, since they aren't Parler's Web host. -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH Annex B-5 +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:42 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > > In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their > enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from > today on parler's new host: > > $ dig parler.com ns > ... > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. > ... > ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 > > $ whois 52.55.168.70 > ... > OrgName:Amazon Technologies Inc. > > and for the curious, ns4.epik.com is hosted by an Epik sub, but from a > cursory glance appears to be single-homed to > CDN77, which is vaguely surprising to me. > > Matt > > On 1/10/21 3:23 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in > > search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the > > proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. > > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ > > > > Regards, > > Bill HErrin > >
Re: Parler
In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from today on parler's new host: $ dig parler.com ns ... parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com. parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com. ... ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70 $ whois 52.55.168.70 ... OrgName:Amazon Technologies Inc. and for the curious, ns4.epik.com is hosted by an Epik sub, but from a cursory glance appears to be single-homed to CDN77, which is vaguely surprising to me. Matt On 1/10/21 3:23 AM, William Herrin wrote: Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ Regards, Bill HErrin
Re Parler
ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf JeffP je...@jeffp.us
Re: Parler
There's a pretty big difference between imparting knowledge and inciting violence. #redherring Disclaimer: I own this book. On 1/12/21 6:40 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: And yet, Amazon will still happily sell you this item: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607966123/ In fact, it is listed as: #1 Best Seller in Anarchism Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 a...@andyring.com âBetter even die free, than to live slaves.â - Frederick Douglas, 1863 On Jan 12, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: "You have to let your customer's services contain death threats against the owner of your company or we'll blacklist you" is the wildest take of 2021 yet. Blocking Amazon because of who they allow to remain a customer is something I wholeheartedly encourage my competitors to do. On 1/12/21 9:29 AM, Kevin McCormick wrote: Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ Thank you, Kevin McCormick From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark seery Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM To: K. Scott Helms Cc: NANOG Operators' Group Subject: Re: Parler I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new territory? Sent from Mobile Device On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: ï»ż Right, it's not a list for content hosting. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM wrote: No, this is a list for Network Operators. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: ï»ż This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my own work as an example). On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM wrote: This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: ï»ż No, It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon wrote: As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. âL.B. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.â FCC License KJ6FJJ On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM wrote: NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network Operators. On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: ï»ż It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos. - Mike Bolitho On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM wrote: Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at all. On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: ï»ż Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? - Mike Bolitho On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin wrote: Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ Regards, Bill HErrin
Re: Parler
It was actually the reverse in the initial email they sent out. They were going to block and only let you access if you contacted them. They are honestly a bunch of morons trying to cover their own asses at this point from the blowback. Obvious whose team they are doing this for. I spent a week in northern Idaho around 10 years back, and I believe they were the provider I had to use up there. Seemed like multiple layers of NAT (like one layer per tower) and I was showing up on the ânet with an IP address from a lawyers office. Yeah... Iâm used to really shitty WISP networks, but this took the cake. To be fair, they may be better now. Sent from my iPad > On Jan 12, 2021, at 3:55 PM, Lee wrote: > > ï»żOn 1/12/21, Kevin McCormick wrote: >> Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies >> like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or >> have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars >> per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. >> >> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ > > Clickbait title. > "The company said Monday it decided to block Facebook and Twitter > for customers who request that starting next Wednesday after the > company received several calls from customers about both websites." > > The way I read it, they aren't blocking Facebook/Twitter for everyone > - the customer has to request the filter for their service. > > Regards, > Lee > >> >> Thank you, >> >> Kevin McCormick >> >> From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark >> seery >> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM >> To: K. Scott Helms >> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group >> Subject: Re: Parler >> >> I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call >> out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: >> >> https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy >> >> Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be >> new territory? >> Sent from Mobile Device >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms >> mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> ï»ż >> Right, it's not a list for content hosting. >> >> Scott Helms >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM >> mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> No, this is a list for Network Operators. >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms >> mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> ï»ż >> This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other >> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my >> own work as an example). >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM >> mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms >> mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> ï»ż >> No, >> >> It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to >> network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be >> correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon >> mailto:b...@6by7.net>> wrote: >> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to >> coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely >> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me >> as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. >> >> >> âL.B. >> >> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE >> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC >> CEO >> b...@6by7.net<mailto:b...@6by7.net> >> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in >> the world.â >> FCC License KJ6FJJ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms >> mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda >> here. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM >> mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: >> >
Re: Parler
On 1/12/21, Kevin McCormick wrote: > Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies > like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or > have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars > per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. > > https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ Clickbait title. "The company said Monday it decided to block Facebook and Twitter for customers who request that starting next Wednesday after the company received several calls from customers about both websites." The way I read it, they aren't blocking Facebook/Twitter for everyone - the customer has to request the filter for their service. Regards, Lee > > Thank you, > > Kevin McCormick > > From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark > seery > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM > To: K. Scott Helms > Cc: NANOG Operators' Group > Subject: Re: Parler > > I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call > out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: > > https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy > > Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be > new territory? > Sent from Mobile Device > > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms > mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: > ï»ż > Right, it's not a list for content hosting. > > Scott Helms > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM > mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: > No, this is a list for Network Operators. > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms > mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: > ï»ż > This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other > businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my > own work as an example). > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM > mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: > This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms > mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: > ï»ż > No, > > It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to > network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be > correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. > > > Scott Helms > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon > mailto:b...@6by7.net>> wrote: > As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to > coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely > relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me > as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. > > > âL.B. > > Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE > 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC > CEO > b...@6by7.net<mailto:b...@6by7.net> > "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in > the world.â > FCC License KJ6FJJ > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms > mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda > here. > > > Scott Helms > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM > mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: > > > NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about > networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue > for Network Operators. > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho > mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > ï»ż > It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily > political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on > how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues > on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. > It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos. > > - Mike Bolitho > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM > mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: > > > Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at > all. > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho > mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > ï»ż > Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? > > - Mike Bolitho > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin > mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: > > > Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in > search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the > proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ > > Regards, > Bill HErrin > >
Re: Parler
On 1/12/21 1:47 PM, John Curran wrote: On 12 Jan 2021, at 12:40 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: And yet, Amazon will still happily sell you this item: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607966123/ In fact, it is listed as: #1 Best Seller in Anarchism Thanks for the reminder! (I hadnât realized it had been updated recently :-) /John According to reviews though the updated version is an edited/sanitized version, not the same as the original.
Re: Parler
On 12 Jan 2021, at 12:40 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > > And yet, Amazon will still happily sell you this item: > > https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607966123/ > > In fact, it is listed as: #1 Best Seller in Anarchism Thanks for the reminder! (I hadnât realized it had been updated recently :-) /John
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
- On Jan 11, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Joe Loiacono jloia...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, > Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech. As Anne was trying to point out, the 1st Amendment protects you from the Government, and more specifically, Congress: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Your 1st Amendment rights do not include the right to put your signs in your neighbor's yard, and by extension, to host your website on your neighbor's (or Amazon's) private infrastructure. This does not mean that I agree with Amazon's decision. There are a lot of implications to this. Thanks, Sabri Who now waits for another donotpay.com "confirmation". And will then, yet again, complain to their support, Mailgun, and AWS.
Re: Parler
And yet, Amazon will still happily sell you this item: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607966123/ In fact, it is listed as: #1 Best Seller in Anarchism Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 a...@andyring.com âBetter even die free, than to live slaves.â - Frederick Douglas, 1863 > On Jan 12, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > > "You have to let your customer's services contain death threats against the > owner of your company or we'll blacklist you" is the wildest take of 2021 yet. > > Blocking Amazon because of who they allow to remain a customer is something I > wholeheartedly encourage my competitors to do. > > On 1/12/21 9:29 AM, Kevin McCormick wrote: >> Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies >> like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or >> have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars >> per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. >> >> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ >> >> Thank you, >> >> Kevin McCormick >> >> From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark >> seery >> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM >> To: K. Scott Helms >> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group >> Subject: Re: Parler >> >> I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call >> out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: >> >> https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy >> >> Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be >> new territory? >> >> Sent from Mobile Device >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >> >> ï»ż >> Right, it's not a list for content hosting. >> >> Scott Helms >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM wrote: >> No, this is a list for Network Operators. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >> >> ï»ż >> This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other >> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my >> own work as an example). >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM wrote: >> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >> >> ï»ż >> No, >> >> It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to >> network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be >> correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon >> wrote: >> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to >> coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely >> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me >> as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. >> >> >> âL.B. >> >> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE >> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC >> CEO >> b...@6by7.net >> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in >> the world.â >> FCC License KJ6FJJ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >> >> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda >> here. >> >> >> Scott Helms >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM wrote: >> >> >> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about >> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue >> for Network Operators. >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: >> >> ï»ż >> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily >> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on >> how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues >> on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. >> It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos. >> >> - Mike Bolitho >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM wrote: >> >> >> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at >> all. >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: >> >> ï»ż >> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? >> >> - Mike Bolitho >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin wrote: >> >> >> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in >> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the >> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. >> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ >> >> Regards, >> Bill HErrin
Re: Parler
"You have to let your customer's services contain death threats against the owner of your company or we'll blacklist you" is the wildest take of 2021 yet. Blocking Amazon because of who they allow to remain a customer is something I wholeheartedly encourage my competitors to do. On 1/12/21 9:29 AM, Kevin McCormick wrote: Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ Thank you, Kevin McCormick *From:*NANOG *On Behalf Of *mark seery *Sent:* Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM *To:* K. Scott Helms *Cc:* NANOG Operators' Group *Subject:* Re: Parler I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new territory? Sent from Mobile Device On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż Right, it's not a list for content hosting. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: No, this is a list for Network Operators. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my own work as an example). On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż No, It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon mailto:b...@6by7.net>> wrote: As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. âL.B. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net <mailto:b...@6by7.net> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.â FCC License KJ6FJJ On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network Operators. On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can spec
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Hi, On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:23 PM John R. Levine wrote: > > I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre > > fire where 602 people died. > > Not at all. The actual quote is > > The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man > falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. > > The Iroquois fire was unfortunately all too real. As you can see by looking at your own quote, there is nothing about whether or not there actually is smoke or is a fire in the "crowded theater". Certainly the operators, owners, and builders of the Iroquois Theater all claimed that the exists were more than adequate and it was entirely the fault of the people who died from being crushed/trampled because they should have remained calm. Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com > As soon as the US entered WW I the first amendment basically went out the > window with the Espionage Act. Schenck was part of that. > > R's, > John
RE: Parler
Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/ Thank you, Kevin McCormick From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark seery Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM To: K. Scott Helms Cc: NANOG Operators' Group Subject: Re: Parler I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new territory? Sent from Mobile Device On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż Right, it's not a list for content hosting. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: No, this is a list for Network Operators. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my own work as an example). On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż No, It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon mailto:b...@6by7.net>> wrote: As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. âL.B. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net<mailto:b...@6by7.net> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.â FCC License KJ6FJJ On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com>> wrote: It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network Operators. On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos. - Mike Bolitho On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM mailto:sro...@ronan-online.com>> wrote: Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at all. On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho mailto:mikeboli...@gmail.com>> wrote: ï»ż Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? - Mike Bolitho On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ Regards, Bill HErrin
Re: Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:46 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > ...unless the higher calling of "religious freedom" is at stake, > in which case, sure, it's OK to exclude entire classes of people, > if serving them would go against your religious beliefs. > precedent set by > Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) Hi Matt, As I recall, the finding in Masterpiece Cakeshop was that the commission screwed up the execution of their process so badly that the result was void. Although both sides badly wanted the court to set a precedent around excluding customers on a religious basis, it did not do so. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre fire where 602 people died. Not at all. The actual quote is The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The Iroquois fire was unfortunately all too real. As soon as the US entered WW I the first amendment basically went out the window with the Espionage Act. Schenck was part of that. R's, John
Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler
> By comparison, that's about what Google makes every 10 days or what > Apple makes every week. Verisign is a highly profitable fish in a tiny > pool. by a very late stage capitalism definition of 'tiny' randy
RE: shouting draft resisters, Parler
At what point does the person from ISC yell this is not nanog related, like he did to me? From: NANOG On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 6:32 PM To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. Cc: Eric Dugas via NANOG Subject: Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler Maybe if one puts a sign/flyer up in their front yard opposing what their belief is and argues "free speech" lol, totally joking... -Joe On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:18 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. mailto:amitch...@isipp.com>> wrote: >> That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone >> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at >> least one person died as a result; ... > > This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre fire where 602 people died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Theatre_fire https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-theater-blaze-killed-hundreds-forever-changed-way-we-approach-fire-safety-180969315/ Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:56 PM John Levine wrote: > In article <35226213b6fcdc4a9c94f0bf30472...@mail.dessus.com> you write: > > > >That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone > >"shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at > >least one person died as a result; ... > > Probably none. That metaphor was used by Justice Holmes in a > now-discredited Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., which was > actually about handing out anti-draft leaflets during WW I. It was > overwrought then and has never been a useful guide to free speech law. > > This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. > > R's, > John >
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:25 PM Joe Loiacono wrote: > Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. One can advocate for or against "free speech" and whatever it may ultimately include or not include without having to invoke a specific United States legal framework which doesn't apply in many (most) contexts. Freedom of speech as a right of humankind has existed as a concept since long before the US did, the US merely enshrined in its constitution that the government should generally not infringe on it, with very limited circumstances in which it may do so. This is, in my opinion and that of others, a good thing. Where those lines are to be drawn is largely up to the courts, and is often the subject of debate among both jurists and laypersons. I guess my overall point here is this: there's no reason you can't say "free speech is an important right that we must protect" without invoking any specific legal doctrine, if that's what you believe. That statement can easily apply to any government agency, private corporation, public corporation, or individual citizen, and be broadly relevant. Once you invoke the first amendment, you're now limiting the context of your advocacy. On 1/11/2021 6:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > >>> That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone > >>> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at > >>> least one person died as a result; ... > >> This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. > > That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do > with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't > disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. > > > > Anne >
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Maybe if one puts a sign/flyer up in their front yard opposing what their belief is and argues "free speech" lol, totally joking... -Joe On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:18 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > >> That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone > >> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at > >> least one person died as a result; ... > > > > This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. > > That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do > with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't > disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. > > Anne > > -- > Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law > Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School > CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange > Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) > >
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech. On 1/11/2021 6:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ... This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
>> That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone >> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at >> least one person died as a result; ... > > This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
In article <35226213b6fcdc4a9c94f0bf30472...@mail.dessus.com> you write: > >That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone >"shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at >least one person died as a result; ... Probably none. That metaphor was used by Justice Holmes in a now-discredited Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., which was actually about handing out anti-draft leaflets during WW I. It was overwrought then and has never been a useful guide to free speech law. This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. R's, John
Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler
In article <695823102.10322.1610397074140.javamail.zim...@cluecentral.net>, Sabri Berisha wrote: >> "The DNS is a natural monopoly. ... >There is also money being made in DNS. A lot of money is being made in DNS. > >According to Verisign(1) Q3 of 2020 closed with 370.7 million new >registrations. That's total registrations across all TLDs, not new registrations. Verisign is by far the largest registry with about 115M in .COM and 15M in .NET. I agree that the total annual revenue of the domain biz, add up everything from Verisign and Godaddy on down, is in the ballpark of $5 billion/year. By comparison, that's about what Google makes every 10 days or what Apple makes every week. Verisign is a highly profitable fish in a tiny pool. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: not a utility, was Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 4:23 AM Rod Beck wrote: > Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing > with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work. > Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with > all their 'friends'. No one is going to use several Facebooks as social > media platform. They want one. > > Regards, > > Roderick. > I think you would quickly find that Facebook became a much emptier place the moment you started charging standardized tariffs to access the service. How many people here would shell out $10/month to scroll endlessly through their timeline, or wall, or whatever facebook calls it these days? I don't even use Facebook for free these days; charging a tariff? Yeah, that's going to result in a ghost town pretty quickly. People want one *free* site to connect to all their friends. They've already learned that it's a non-starter trying to get their friends to join them on a platform that charges a monthly tariff. It's only a natural monopoly because the advertising is subsidizing the free nature of it. Take away the free aspect, and suddenly it's not a very natural monopoly at all. Matt
Re: Parler
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:53 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:58 PM Matthew Petach > wrote: > > Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want. > > Hi Matt, > > You've conflated a couple ideas here. Public accommodation laws were > passed in the wake of Jim Crow to the effect that any business which > provides services to the public must provide services to all the > public. Courts have found such laws constitutional. Not to mention the > plethora of common-law precedent in this area. You can set rules and > enforce them but those rules can't arbitrarily exclude whole classes > of people nor may they be applied capriciously. > ...unless the higher calling of "religious freedom" is at stake, in which case, sure, it's OK to exclude entire classes of people, if serving them would go against your religious beliefs. precedent set by *Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission*, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) Businesses which post the sign that starts, "we reserve the right," > are quite mistaken. If a customer is rejected and removed without good > cause and thereby injured, a business can find itself on the losing > end of a lawsuit. > But if a customer is simply denied service based on a category that the business provider claims is against their religious beliefs, and no injury takes place, the courts have provided precedent in support of such exclusion. > "No shirt, no shoes, no service," on the other hand, is entirely > enforceable so long as that enforcement is consistent. > > The legal term "prior restraint" is even more narrowly focused. It > refers only to blocking publication on the grounds that the material > to be published is false or otherwise harmful. The government is > almost never allowed to do so. Instead, remedies are available only > after the material is published. > Fair enough; I used the phrase "prior restraint" in a completely amateur and inaccurate way to indicate a business taking action against a customer prior to actual harm being done. > With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No > organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of > the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over > what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which > is published. More precisely, common law precedent says you're liable > for what you publish. Section 230 grants immunity to organizations who > _do not_ exercise editorial control. But what is editorial control? > The courts have been all over the place on that one. > Amazon, Google, and Apple did not exercise editorial control over the content; they severed a customer relationship, which is well within the rights of any business. They didn't keep Parler on the platform, but say "you can't say the following words in any of your posts" -- which would have put them on shakier grounds; they simply said "sorry, we don't want you as a customer any longer." If you're my customer, and my terms of service allow me to terminate my relationship with you at any time for a list of reasons, then I can terminate my relationship with you at any time, based on those reasons. As ISPs, we depend on TOS clauses like that to allow us to terminate customers that are DDoSing others, are attacking others, are causing harm to others, are posting illegal content, etc. If you're notified of CSEI on your platform, removing access to it and turning it over to the FBI doesn't put you in jeopardy of violating section 230 immunity. You're not acting as a moderator of content, you're enforcing your terms of service and cooperating with law enforcement. If I kick a customer off because their check bounced, I'm not moderating their content, I'm severing my relationship with a customer for non-payment. Of course, I'm still a complete layman, and I bow to John Levine's *much* more nuanced and accurate explanation of the difference, which I've hopelessly mangled in this discussion. ^_^;; > Regards, > Bill Herrin > Matt
Re: not a utility, was Parler
- On Jan 11, 2021, at 4:46 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: Hi, > "The DNS is a natural monopoly. People want one resolver so they can > connect with all their 'sites'. No one is going to use several > nameservers for domain name resolution. They want one." > > Nah. The DNS is a natural distributed database, with authoritative data > held by those with the most interest in its accuracy. But unlike DNS > data, there is money in collecting all the facebooky things - IF you > are allowed to sell them. Stop that, and Facebook is a natural > distributed database too. There is also money being made in DNS. A lot of money is being made in DNS. According to Verisign(1) Q3 of 2020 closed with 370.7 million new registrations. At an average of $15 per domain(2), that equals a market of $5.5 billion dollars. Now, that's of course pocket change compared to Facebook's $21.4 billion Q3 revenue(3), but still. And that's without all those alt-root con schemes. Thanks, Sabri (1) https://www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml (2) https://www.websitebuilderexpert.com/building-websites/domain-name-cost/ (3) https://investor.fb.com/investor-events/event-details/2020/Facebook-Q3-2020-Earnings/default.aspx
Re: Parler
They certainly have been many many times, but that's an entirely different animal than the rules for content hosting and publishing. Actions from network providers have (AFAIK) always been in conjunction with some traffic from or to the violating party rather than an otherwise legal content hosting arrangement. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:05 PM mark seery wrote: > > I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call > out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: > > https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy > > Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be > new territory? > > Sent from Mobile Device > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: > > ï»ż > Right, it's not a list for content hosting. > > Scott Helms > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM wrote: >> >> No, this is a list for Network Operators. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >> >> ï»ż >> This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other >> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my >> own work as an example). >> >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM wrote: >>> >>> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >>> >>> ï»ż >>> No, >>> >>> It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to >>> network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd >>> be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here. >>> >>> >>> Scott Helms >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to >>>> coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely >>>> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects >>>> me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. >>>> >>>> >>>> âL.B. >>>> >>>> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE >>>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC >>>> CEO >>>> b...@6by7.net >>>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in >>>> the world.â >>>> FCC License KJ6FJJ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda >>>> here. >>>> >>>> >>>> Scott Helms >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about >>>> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant >>>> issue for Network Operators. >>>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: >>>> >>>> ï»ż >>>> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily >>>> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, >>>> on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing >>>> issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even >>>> a thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into >>>> chaos. >>>> >>>> - Mike Bolitho >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political >>>> at all. >>>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: >>>> >>>> ï»ż >>>> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? >>>> >>>> - Mike Bolitho >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in >>>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the >>>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. >>>> >>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bill HErrin >>>> >>>>
Re: Parler
Weâre straying pretty far into OT here but they do run a network - Trump banning TikTok because they hurt his feelings would be Stalinist. Twitter banning Trump for TOD violations is the Free Market speaking. Itâs pretty fundamental to civics, participation society, and sanity in general, to get these right. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.â FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:33 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > ï»ż > Sometimes it's worth turning the issue around and looking at it right > up the...um, whatever. > > A friend who is rather right-wing (tho mostly sane) said angrily that > AWS terminating Parler was "Stalinist" (apparently his metaphor for > totalitarian.) > > I said no, the government _forcing_ AWS to carry Parler, or Twitter to > carry Trump (another 'plaint) would be "Stalinist". > > Imagine if a Chinese social media company refused to carry anything > posted by Xi Jinping (China's president) for similar reasoning. > > Then you'd likely, one can only speculate, see "Stalinist" in action. > > P.S. Does anyone know whether Trump is paid for his Twitter traffic as > many celebrities are? > > -- >-Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Parler
On 1/10/21 9:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: Look closer. The AWS RDS version of mysql is unable to replicate with your version of mysql. The configuration which would permit it is not exposed to you. Unless something has changed in the last couple years? Anything that abstracts database services screams LOCK IN. Does anybody know what the supposed value of this lock in is? Mike, wondering whether there exists database repair people like when my toilet explodes
RE: Parler
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; and the charge laid against the shouter was "reckless disregard for human life resulting in culpable homocide" and the elements of that offence being proved, was dismissed on the basis that the "speech" was protected by the first amendment? -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. >-Original Message- >From: Rod Beck >Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2021 05:13 >To: Keith Medcalf >Subject: Re: Parler > >Hi, > > >Your distinction sounds specious. The Courts have consistently that the >1st amendment protects free speech from government retaliation in many >instances. It is not just prior restraint. > > >Best, > > >Roderick. > > > > >From: NANOG on >behalf of Keith Medcalf >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:11 AM >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: RE: Parler > >>The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting >>freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell >>their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.) > >You are correct and incorrect. The First Amendment prohibits the >Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint". It does >nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its >agents. > >You are also incorrect. Freedom of Speech is Absolute. There is no >prior restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" >whatever that means. That does not mean that speech does not have >"consequences". The first amendment only protects against prior >restraint, it does not protect against the suffering of consequences. >And of course "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the >speech. > >Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell that >means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken >prior to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an >assumption of fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical >question) and the courts do not rule on hypotheticals. If you do not >understand the difference then perhaps you should be sentenced to death >since you have a hand, and having a hand it could hold a gun, and since >it could hold a gun, you could also murder someone. So therefore you >should be put to death now as "prior restraint" to prevent you from >committing murder. > >I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be >self-evident. > >-- >Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved >with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. > > >
Re: Parler
S3 objects in Parler are now showing " All access to this object has been disabled" This error means you are trying to access a bucket that has been locked down by AWS so that nobody can access it, regardless of permissions -- all access has been disabled. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:06 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 1/10/21 10:33 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> In article <474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com> you > write: > >>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by > in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted > >>> based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, > shouldnât that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and > >>> Twitter? > >> If this was in the US and it was after the CDA was passed in 1996, > >> your lawyers were just wrong. > > it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the > > hell you are replying > > > +1 > > Mike > > -- Sincerely, Jason W Kuehl Cell 920-419-8983 jason.w.ku...@gmail.com
Re: Parler
On 1/10/21 10:33 PM, Randy Bush wrote: In article <474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com> you write: When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldnât that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter? If this was in the US and it was after the CDA was passed in 1996, your lawyers were just wrong. it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the hell you are replying +1 Mike
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
In article you write: >Well, for example, Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, No. 18-1041 (3rd Cir. July >3, 2019) which found that Amazon was a seller of goods and not merely >hosting information about a third party's sale, and thus subject to >product liability law for the product that was sold. But in the Erie >Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the >opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over >a defective third-party product. Good citations, but really, an edge case if you are not an online marketplace hosting third-party sellers. R's, John
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
In article you write: >> Sigh. This is false. 100% false. It is the exact opposite of what 47 >> USC 230 really says. Also, it's the CDA, not the DMCA. > >Hi John, > >I conflated some of the DMCA safe harbor stuff with the CDA publisher >stuff. My bad. > >I stand by the gist of what I said which, while imprecise, is >consistent with what you posted. The common law precedent is that >publishers are liable for what they publish. Section 230 carves out >the rules for when an online service is not a publisher (which is >decidedly not "always"), and while I don't have the cases on the tip >of my tongue, there have been some real post-CDA head scratchers where >a court decided that an online service exercised sufficient control of >the content to have made itself a publisher. I have the case law and with all due respect, you are still wrong. The cases where the provider was liable are edge cases. In the 2008 Roommates case, an apartment matching service had a questionaire that asked demographic questions that landlords can't ask. and the court held that that asking users to provide the answers made them liable for the answers. Except four years later they ruled that roommates aren't landlords so never mind. The recent Malwarebytes case said (wrongly I believe) that the good faith filtering immunity doesn't apply when one antivirus program says another is a "potentially unwanted program." FOSTA/SESTA carved out an ill-defined hole for sex trafficing. For any sort of normal content moderation, Section 230 does what it says. R's, John
Re: Parler
Eric S. Raymond wrote on 11/01/2021 00:00: Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part; I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted. this is quite an innovative level of speculation. Care to provide sources? Nick
Re: Parler
Aurora MySQL can absolutely be replicated with on-prem SQL, we did it at $dayjob. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 11, 2021, at 12:03 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > ï»żOn Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:32 PM wrote: >>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William Herrin wrote: > Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to > run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As > long as you install your own database software in both, you can do > that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly > out of luck. >>> >>> Is RDS based on something else? I find it hard to believe that they wrote a >>> rdb from scratch. But yes, once they own your db they own you. I've looked >>> before how to migrate from mysql to postgres and was shocked at how little >>> there seems to be out there to even do even the easier stuff let alone the >>> proprietary extensions. > >> They have Amazon Aurora versions of many popular databases which are binary >> compatible with the standard versions. So you can run standard Postgres on >> one cloud and Aurora Postgres in AWS. > > > Look closer. The AWS RDS version of mysql is unable to replicate with > your version of mysql. The configuration which would permit it is not > exposed to you. > > Unless something has changed in the last couple years? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: not a utility, was Parler
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 12:19 +, Rod Beck wrote: > Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by > replacing with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not > always work. Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one > site to connect with all their 'friends'. No one is going to use > several Facebooks as social media platform. They want one. "The DNS is a natural monopoly. People want one resolver so they can connect with all their 'sites'. No one is going to use several nameservers for domain name resolution. They want one." Nah. The DNS is a natural distributed database, with authoritative data held by those with the most interest in its accuracy. But unlike DNS data, there is money in collecting all the facebooky things - IF you are allowed to sell them. Stop that, and Facebook is a natural distributed database too. But how to stop it - that is the question... Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Re: not a utility, was Parler
Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work. Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with all their 'friends'. No one is going to use several Facebooks as social media platform. They want one. Regards, Roderick. From: John Levine Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 11:57 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: Rod Beck Subject: Re: not a utility, was Parler In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a >public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that >platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such >importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation >under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this >idea - I have not studied it and also realize that Amazon >is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential. That is a dream of some factions, but it is not realistic. You can certainly make an argument that Google and Facebook are monopolies, but the remedies for that are to break them up or to require them to provide access to their competitors to some of their internal facilities, e.g., allow other ad networks to bid on and provide the ads that show up with your Google search or Facebook page. Utilities have tariffs under which everyone who orders the same kind of service gets the same service at the same price. I understand how to apply that to a railroad or a power company or a telephone company, but I do not understand how to apply it to a search engine or social media provider or online megastore and neither does anyone else. R's, John
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:51 AM Joe Greco wrote: > Are there examples that do not conflate other areas of the law? Hi Joe, I expect so. Maynard v. Snapchat, for example, in which the court found that snapchat had no section 230 immunity in a lawsuit related to its speed overlay feature for user-generated content. Snapchat eventually won the case on a different theory. I don't expect to find much if anything that's both directly on point for Amazon/Parler and contrary to John's citations. But then I didn't claim there would be. What I actually said was that the "courts have been all over the place" on how much control an online service had to have over third-party content before section 230 no longer applied. I think the three cases I've now cited for you illustrate that. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:33:08AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Danny O'Brien wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:54 PM William Herrin wrote: > >> there have been some real post-CDA head scratchers where > >> a court decided that an online service exercised sufficient control of > >> the content to have made itself a publisher. > > > > You really need to give citations here, because IMHO not only is this > > *exactly* the scenario that Section 230 was intended to provide legal > > clarity regarding (and so protect service providers from this kind of > > moderation double-bind), but as I understand it pretty much all the > > subsequent caselaw has *strengthened* the ability for providers to moderate > > and manage content, including user-generated content, without triggering > > liability. > > Well, for example, Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, No. 18-1041 (3rd Cir. July > 3, 2019) which found that Amazon was a seller of goods and not merely > hosting information about a third party's sale, and thus subject to > product liability law for the product that was sold. But in the Erie > Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the > opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over > a defective third-party product. These seem to be examples of situations where Amazon and Erie were selling things (other than Internet access/services), and were not merely acting as a service provider. I don't think that, back when the CDA was written, the service provider world ever expected random retailers or other sellers of products and services to be able to claim section 230 protections just because the transaction happened to be enabled by the Internet. It also isn't clear under what theory 230 protections would take precedence over other protections such as product liability law. I don't think that the fact that you might also sell Internet services creates an umbrella. Are there examples that do not conflate other areas of the law? Given the subject here, it seems relevant to want examples closer to what Parler and service providers providing them services or connectivity might need to consider. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Danny O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:54 PM William Herrin wrote: >> there have been some real post-CDA head scratchers where >> a court decided that an online service exercised sufficient control of >> the content to have made itself a publisher. > > You really need to give citations here, because IMHO not only is this > *exactly* the scenario that Section 230 was intended to provide legal clarity > regarding (and so protect service providers from this kind of moderation > double-bind), but as I understand it pretty much all the subsequent caselaw > has *strengthened* the ability for providers to moderate and manage content, > including user-generated content, without triggering liability. Well, for example, Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, No. 18-1041 (3rd Cir. July 3, 2019) which found that Amazon was a seller of goods and not merely hosting information about a third party's sale, and thus subject to product liability law for the product that was sold. But in the Erie Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over a defective third-party product. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
On 1/11/21 1:33 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the > hell you are replying If you use a threaded email client (MUA), it's really easy to see it. It was a reply to sro...@ronan-online.com's email of 10 Jan 2021 08:42:56 -0500 His MUA set the "In-Reply-To" header, and thus it was referencing the Mesaage-ID of 474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com of the email sronan sent. Most modern MUA's can process threads and make it really easy to read lists. This excludes outlook which doesn't set these headers and is basically impossible to use on any standard mailing lists for this and other reasons. I use Thunderbird and mutt, both support this threaded format. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
Re: Parler
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, h...@interall.co.il wrote: I would assume Google and Azure would act the same to Parler. So what will end up happening is that US based fringe content will end up being hosted in China or Russia, and Chinese and Russian fringe content will end up being hosted in the USA. With many corporations obeying chinese censorship orders, I would not be so sure about the latter. https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfg1ce/list_of_companies_under_chinas_censorship_orders/ -Dan
Re: Parler
Toma, I would assume Google and Azure would act the same to Parler. So what will end up happening is that US based fringe content will end up being hosted in China or Russia, and Chinese and Russian fringe content will end up being hosted in the USA. -Hank Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer -- In my experience, moving off Amazon services isn't that much of a trouble, especially if compared to moving off Azure. Cloud Active Directory + Sentinel + PowerBI ? and boom, your company is with Azure for life. -- Töma
Re: Parler
Hey look, someone posted every link to every post and video uploaded to the platform during the DC Capitol attack ... https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347896132798533632 On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:02 PM Valdis KlÄtnieks wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:08:24 -0500, Izaac said: > > > demonstrated consistently different behavior between them, i.e. the > > @potus account is used for official communications and @realdonaldtrump > > for personal communications with the public. The former is indeed > > How does that square with the White House Press Secretary's statement > (never walked back as far as I know) that @realdonaldtrump tweets were > official government policy statements? >
Re: Parler
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:08:24 -0500, Izaac said: > demonstrated consistently different behavior between them, i.e. the > @potus account is used for official communications and @realdonaldtrump > for personal communications with the public. The former is indeed How does that square with the White House Press Secretary's statement (never walked back as far as I know) that @realdonaldtrump tweets were official government policy statements? pgp8E_1wQ3U1l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Parler
> In article <474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com> you write: >> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house >> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted >> based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, >> shouldnât that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and >> Twitter? > > If this was in the US and it was after the CDA was passed in 1996, > your lawyers were just wrong. it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the hell you are replying randy
Re: Parler
Sorry for intruding one more time but in my experience, which is absolutely vast, amateurs argue written law, professionals (i.e., lawyers) generally argue precedent; how courts have interpreted the law in cases applicable to the issue at hand. If no useful precedent exists professionals tend to run like hell unless they're law professors or very highly paid. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Parler
Maybe read Holmes' dissent where he uses the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" or at least listen to the cliff notes: https://www.popehat.com/2018/06/28/make-no-law-episode-seven-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ . -A On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 2:59 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 1/10/21 13:50, Rod Beck wrote: > > > As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the > > riot last week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud > > to the surface, I am very perplexed how to reconcile free speech and the > > garbage flowing through our social streets. > > The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting > freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell > their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.) > > Has anyone seen a rabbit? We've traveled quite a way down the rabbit hole. > > -- > Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net > Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 > 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV >
Re: Parler
Sometimes it's worth turning the issue around and looking at it right up the...um, whatever. A friend who is rather right-wing (tho mostly sane) said angrily that AWS terminating Parler was "Stalinist" (apparently his metaphor for totalitarian.) I said no, the government _forcing_ AWS to carry Parler, or Twitter to carry Trump (another 'plaint) would be "Stalinist". Imagine if a Chinese social media company refused to carry anything posted by Xi Jinping (China's president) for similar reasoning. Then you'd likely, one can only speculate, see "Stalinist" in action. P.S. Does anyone know whether Trump is paid for his Twitter traffic as many celebrities are? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Parler
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:32 PM wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William Herrin wrote: > >> Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to > >> run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As > >> long as you install your own database software in both, you can do > >> that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly > >> out of luck. > > > > Is RDS based on something else? I find it hard to believe that they wrote a > > rdb from scratch. But yes, once they own your db they own you. I've looked > > before how to migrate from mysql to postgres and was shocked at how little > > there seems to be out there to even do even the easier stuff let alone the > > proprietary extensions. > They have Amazon Aurora versions of many popular databases which are binary > compatible with the standard versions. So you can run standard Postgres on > one cloud and Aurora Postgres in AWS. Look closer. The AWS RDS version of mysql is unable to replicate with your version of mysql. The configuration which would permit it is not exposed to you. Unless something has changed in the last couple years? Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:13 PM John Levine wrote: > > In article > you > write: > >With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No > >organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of > >the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over > >what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which > >is published. ... > > Sigh. This is false. 100% false. It is the exact opposite of what 47 > USC 230 really says. Also, it's the CDA, not the DMCA. Hi John, I conflated some of the DMCA safe harbor stuff with the CDA publisher stuff. My bad. I stand by the gist of what I said which, while imprecise, is consistent with what you posted. The common law precedent is that publishers are liable for what they publish. Section 230 carves out the rules for when an online service is not a publisher (which is decidedly not "always"), and while I don't have the cases on the tip of my tongue, there have been some real post-CDA head scratchers where a court decided that an online service exercised sufficient control of the content to have made itself a publisher. That said, I encourage folks to refer to your message for the excellent quotes and references. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
On January 10, 2021 at 08:42 sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) wrote: > While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want > for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is > now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up > to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts > objectionable content. To avoid that sort of thing I'd just send PITA's notice that we typically get (N) complaints per customer per (month or whatever.) We have received $BIGNUM complaints and we are obliged to respond which involves staff time etc. We believe they are eliciting those excess complaints by their behavior so henceforth we will charge them (like $100/complaint response.) FYI for the recent period that would amount to $BIGBUX. They will also be responsible for any resulting legal expenses yaddie-yaddie. We have no obligation to extend them credit for this service so will need a retainer of (around 2x$BIGBUX) and future bills to be paid within (small N) days of posting. Failure to agree (agreement attached) and forward the requisite retainer by (date) will result in the end of our services for them and the closing of their account. P.S. I was actually paid about $1,000 once but usually that ended it, they either apologized and backed off (sometimes it was just aggressive advertisers), or closed their account / let it expire. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
In article you write: >With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No >organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of >the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over >what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which >is published. ... Sigh. This is false. 100% false. It is the exact opposite of what 47 USC 230 really says. Also, it's the CDA, not the DMCA. Please see the message I sent earlier today about section 230 and the links in it to material by actual lawyers explaining what the law does and does not say and do. R's, John
Re: Parler
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:58 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want. Hi Matt, You've conflated a couple ideas here. Public accommodation laws were passed in the wake of Jim Crow to the effect that any business which provides services to the public must provide services to all the public. Courts have found such laws constitutional. Not to mention the plethora of common-law precedent in this area. You can set rules and enforce them but those rules can't arbitrarily exclude whole classes of people nor may they be applied capriciously. Businesses which post the sign that starts, "we reserve the right," are quite mistaken. If a customer is rejected and removed without good cause and thereby injured, a business can find itself on the losing end of a lawsuit. "No shirt, no shoes, no service," on the other hand, is entirely enforceable so long as that enforcement is consistent. The legal term "prior restraint" is even more narrowly focused. It refers only to blocking publication on the grounds that the material to be published is false or otherwise harmful. The government is almost never allowed to do so. Instead, remedies are available only after the material is published. With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which is published. More precisely, common law precedent says you're liable for what you publish. Section 230 grants immunity to organizations who _do not_ exercise editorial control. But what is editorial control? The courts have been all over the place on that one. Regards, Bill Herrin Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
Oh, geez... I was going to ignore this thread, I really was. :( On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:13 PM Keith Medcalf wrote: > >The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting > >freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell > >their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.) > > You are correct and incorrect. The First Amendment prohibits the > Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint". It does > nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its agents. > > You are also incorrect. Freedom of Speech is Absolute. There is no prior > restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" whatever > that means. That does not mean that speech does not have "consequences". > The first amendment only protects against prior restraint, it does not > protect against the suffering of consequences. And of course > "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the speech. > > Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell that > means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken prior > to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an assumption of > fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical question) and the courts > do not rule on hypotheticals. If you do not understand the difference then > perhaps you should be sentenced to death since you have a hand, and having > a hand it could hold a gun, and since it could hold a gun, you could also > murder someone. So therefore you should be put to death now as "prior > restraint" to prevent you from committing murder. > You're being dense. Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want. Airlines, for example, if they suspect you pose a risk to the other passengers on the flight, can refuse to take off while you are on the plane, or even turn the plane back around and land, and have you ejected. They don't have to wait until you've beaten up another passenger, tried to open a door mid-flight, or stabbed someone. To bring it closer to home, an ISP can refuse to provide service to someone they suspect is a spammer. They don't have to wait until the first spam is sent, they can exercise prior restraint and deny the entity service based simply on the suspicion they may be a spammer, and therefore not worth providing service to. I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be > self-evident. > I am sorry to say your grasp of facts seems to be tenuous at best. :( Better luck in the next reality. Matt
Re: do we know what laws apply to Parler
In article <2ab9a074-bb67-4e75-1db1-2c7fff87f...@rollernet.us> you write: >On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >> sro...@ronan-online.com : >>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want >>> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting >problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could >potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any >other customer who hosts objectionable content. >>> >>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house >>> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I >hosted based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, >shouldnât that same principal apply to platforms like >AWS and Twitter? >> >> Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part; >> I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted. > >Surely everyone on this list, purportedly a network operators list, has >to have at least heard of 47 USC Section 230... right? Unfortunately, you appear to be wildly overoptimistic.
