Re: [Operational] Internet Police

check the agreed maintenance windows as defined in the (SLA)section Maintenance Plans - etc   - Original Message From: Joel Jaeggli To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 6:48:41 PM Subject: Re: [Operational] Internet Police On 12/10/10 9:06

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/10 9:06 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:08:00 EST, Lamar Owen said: > > I believe the word you wanted was "hooliganism". And we have a legal system > that has about 3,000 years of experience in dealing with *that*, thank you > very > much. The code of hamurab

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 12:07 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: Unless you can get every company to sign up to an agreement it will never work. Even then you'll still find unscrupulous companies that are far more interested in revenue than reputation. There are a number of hosting companies I'm sure most network p

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 07:59 AM, George Bonser wrote: Not to mention the risk of lost business for customers that just can't be bothered to fix broken machines. Paul That supposes that another ISP would accept their bot-infected machine. It would require some cooperation among the providers. And shoul

RE: [Operational] Internet Police

> Not to mention the risk of lost business for customers that just can't > be bothered to fix broken machines. > > Paul That supposes that another ISP would accept their bot-infected machine. It would require some cooperation among the providers. And should some ISP get the reputation of being

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 07:45 AM, George Bonser wrote: From: William McCall Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 8:45 AM To: Lamar Owen Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Operational] Internet Police To the folks out there that presently work for an SP, if someone called you (or the relevant department) and

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 11:45 AM, George Bonser wrote: If an ISP were to actively disconnect clients who were infected with a bot (intentionally infected or not), the end users themselves might be a little more vigilant at keeping their systems free of them.*But* any ISP doing that would also have to be p

RE: [Operational] Internet Police

> From: William McCall > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 8:45 AM > To: Lamar Owen > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: [Operational] Internet Police > To the folks out there that presently work for an SP, if someone > called you (or the relevant department) and gave you a l

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:14:20 EST, Lamar Owen said: > Identity theft can cause loss of life due to the stress of mopping up > afterwards. Oh, give me a *break*. This is well off the end of the slippery slope. My car got totaled in a rear-end collision a few weeks ago. If I get so stressed dealin

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 11:37 AM, Jack Bates wrote: assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the At most, B ii applies, but if I'm not mistaken, A, B, and C must all occur by that statute (the giveaway is C, as it doesn't make sense as a single condition). err, or one could just

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 11:06 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: The USA Patriot act says: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Friday, December 10, 2010 11:46:43 am JC Dill wrote: > On 10/12/10 8:08 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > In reality DoS threats/execution of those threats/ 'pwning' / website > > vandalism are all forms of terrorism. > No one was "terrorized" because they couldn't reach MasterCard or > because Mas

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:08:00 EST, Lamar Owen said: > In reality DoS threats/execution of those threats/ 'pwning' / website > vandalism are all forms of terrorism. Let's not dilute the meaning of terrorism to the point where graffiti, cyber or otherwise, is classifed as terrorism. The USA Patriot

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM, JC Dill > We *really* don't need Homeland Security and TSA deciding that > cyber-vandalism falls into the realm of terrorism and thus comes under their > purview to "protect us against". Their security theater at the airport is > too much already, I can't begin

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 10:44 AM, William McCall wrote: To the folks out there that presently work for an SP, if someone called you (or the relevant department) and gave you a list of end-user IPs that were DDoSing this person/entity, how long would you take to verify and stop the end user's stream of cra

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 10/12/10 8:08 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: On Thursday, December 09, 2010 01:26:30 pm Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: "front lines of this "cyberwar"? Warfare isn't the correct metaphor. Espionage/covert action is the correct metaphor. In reality DoS thre

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday, December 09, 2010 01:26:30 pm Dobbins, Roland wrote: >> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: >> > "front lines of this "cyberwar"? >> Warfare isn't the correct metaphor. > >> Espionage/covert action is the correct meta

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/10/2010 11:08 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > In reality DoS threats/execution of those threats/ 'pwning' / website > vandalism are all forms of terrorism. An easily pronounceable version with a > 'net-' 'e-' or even 'cyber-' prefix. is difficult. I thought "e-*" was so yesterday, wouldn'

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Thursday, December 09, 2010 01:26:30 pm Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > > "front lines of this "cyberwar"? > Warfare isn't the correct metaphor. > Espionage/covert action is the correct metaphor. In reality DoS threats/execution of those threats/ '

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> And if I ever find the genius who came up with the "we are not the >> internet police" meme ... > > he died over a decade ago He also said "The Internet works because a lot of people cooperate to do things together" Remove the "together" and t

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

Butlerian Jihad. -Bill On Dec 9, 2010, at 19:02, "Robert E. Seastrom" wrote: > > mikea writes: > >> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 06:26:30PM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote: >> >>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: >> "front lines of this "cyberwar"? >>

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Dec 10, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > "cyber-intifada" was the proper trope, but so far it has failed to grow legs. The problem is that non-ironic use of the appellation 'cyber-' is generally inversely proportional to actual clue, so it should be avoided at all costs. ;>

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

mikea writes: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 06:26:30PM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > >> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > >> > "front lines of this "cyberwar"? > >> Warfare isn't the correct metaphor. > >> Espionage/covert action is the correct metaphor. > > "Low intensity confli

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> And if I ever find the genius who came up with the "we are not the >> internet police" meme ... > > he died over a decade ago All due respect to him, but I didnt want to kick his teeth in or anything, merely ask if he'd like to reconsider it,

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > [CALEA] is designed to track down and prosecute people, not stop malicious > activity. Right. > In order for the law to try and stop malicious activities (digital or real), > it must place constraints on our freedoms. See TSA/Airport Security.

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

Once upon a time, Fred Baker said: > did you know that DSLRs are illegal in Kuwait unless one is a registered > journalist? Did you know that they are not? http://thenextweb.com/me/2010/11/30/kuwait-dslr-ban-does-not-exist-after-all/ This is like the people attacking EasyDNS because they took

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 06:26:30PM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > > "front lines of this "cyberwar"? > Warfare isn't the correct metaphor. > Espionage/covert action is the correct metaphor. "Low intensity conflict" may be more correct. --

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > My question is what architectural recommendations will you make to your > employer if/when the US Govt compels our employers to accept our role as the > "front lines of this "cyberwar"? > > I figure once someone with a relevant degree of influe

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

Was it the original IANA? - Original Message - From: Randy Bush To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: North American Network Operators Group Sent: Thu Dec 09 14:12:41 2010 Subject: Re: [Operational] Internet Police > And if I ever find the genius who came up with the "we are

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

> And if I ever find the genius who came up with the "we are not the > internet police" meme ... he died over a decade ago

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

> Obviously the environment is created by layers 8/9, but I'm interested in > the layer 1-7 solutions that the community would consider/recommend. > > BGP blackhole communities is a good way to push the problem upstream, assuming your provider will agree to it. In theory, that could also work

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

And if I ever find the genius who came up with the "we are not the internet police" meme ... On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Let's put it this way. > > 1. If you host government agencies, provide connectivity to say a > nuclear power plant or an army base, or a b

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

Let's put it this way. 1. If you host government agencies, provide connectivity to say a nuclear power plant or an army base, or a bank or .. .. - you'd certainly work with your customers to meet their security requirements. 2. If you are a service provider serving up DSL - why then, there are so

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/9/2010 12:31 PM, Michael Smith wrote: How is "what to block" identified? ...by content key words? ..traffic profiles / signatures? Deny all, unless flow (addresses/protocol/port) is pre-approved / registered? CALEA doesn't provide block. It provides full data dumps to the authorities

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

How is "what to block" identified? ...by content key words? ..traffic profiles / signatures? Deny all, unless flow (addresses/protocol/port) is pre-approved / registered? What does the technical solution look like? Any solutions to maintain some semblance of freedom? On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > "front lines of this "cyberwar"? Warfare isn't the correct metaphor. Espionage/covert action is the correct metaphor. --- Roland Dobbins //

Re: [Operational] Internet Police

On 12/9/2010 12:19 PM, Michael Smith wrote: So... if/when our employers are unable to resist the US Govt's demand that we "join in the national defense", wouldn't this community be the ones asked to guard the border? CALEA done

[Operational] Internet Police

My question is what architectural recommendations will you make to your employer if/when the US Govt compels our employers to accept our role as the "front lines of this "cyberwar"? I figure once someone with a relevant degree of influence in the govts realizes that the "cyberwar" is between conte