[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?
Chris chrish at consol.net
Mon Apr 2 13:25:44 CEST 2012
On 03/30/2012 03:30 PM, furio ercolessi wrote: >>From what I understood, the discussion was about networks controlled > by criminals, not about networks abused by criminals. ...and they were called bot-nets. quite ri... err - wrong. ;) > RBN was extremely well known to the antiabuse community. also extremely well known is that the legal situation in russia is quite different from many others. which brings us back to the core of the thread again: no, ripe was not, is not, and can never be a legislative, judicative, or police. if you think you are dealing with criminal activity, go to the legal organisations. if you are unhappy with a country's legislative - well, i don't know, start some war or whatever you do in such cases... > controlled by criminals and used exclusively for criminal activity, to make it short: if you want to deal with criminals, go to the police! apart from that i take it as probable libel. i mean, even if i believed you might sort of really know what you're talking about: 'exclusively for criminal activity' - come on, maybe you're not jurisprudence, but nevertheless, to take part in such discussions, a basic level of accurateness is really a must. at least to be taken seriously, i mean otherwise people just hardly have a choice than to assume what you say is not true. to decide about this is a court's responsibility anyway. > anti-abuse community, until some law enforcements agency or possibly see, you know how it works. (let's ignore the or-part, for civilisation's sake...) > it right here in this thread: people working in the field know very well that's not what i observe. i mean taking away some ips to stop a bot-network... let's just stick to the topic's facts in this discussion, i'd very much appreciate that. what's the point in pointing out how good or bad you think sbdy might be. and from what i see it's more like a political wannabe-fight that can be observed here, than a substantiated technical discussion. (actually, a few of them :) > the RIR side ever because it's not in the RIR mandate. again, in the end you seem to know how it works. > is bigger than in the other regions - was removed from the co-chair i don't know about this issue, what happened and what not - but what i can say is that a chair having problems understanding the nature of ripe - i'd certainly vote to drop that one. > to criminals is being swept under the carpet, with no hope for any when i read this kind of rants, imagining the same people declaring who or what is criminal and what not sends shivers down my spine... let's hope rule of law will be a surviving concept. regards, Chris