[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Luis Morais
lfmorais at gmail.com
Tue Apr 2 19:46:00 CEST 2019
I support 2019-03 Luís Morais On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: > > In message <CAFV686dzExAoZs16zZb=767BdMy-MY= > 7HvmbNdO92qh0Q8ir6Q at mail.gmail.com>, > Jacob Slater <jacob at rezero.org> wrote: > > >If a NCC member is actively and willfully, after having been notified and > >given ample opportunity to resolve the issue, engaged in widespread > >hijacking such that RIR/NIR members have complained about their ability to > >use their own resources, yes. > > I don't see why that last part should even be a considration. > > Who cares whether or not some RIR members has complained about "their > inability to use their own resources"? Theft is theft. > > {re: ALS Scan v. Cloudflare} > >That case has nothing at all to do with the theft OF IP ADDRESSES, and > thus, > >> it is rather entirely irrelevant to this discussion. > >> > >The case does deal with the slippery slope argument in that it > demonstrates > >at least one instance of modern law where removing content from an online > >service (at all) resulted in an opening for legal liability. > > Wait. So are you suggestng that the discontinuance of Cloudflare caching > for some pirate porn sites -created- a lgeal liability for those sites > where none had existed before? If so, then you're going to have to explain > that to me very very slowly. > > >... Action should be well > >backed with evidence. > > We agree. > > >Cloudflare's blog post on the subject has comments on the matter. One of > >their staff members is known for stating "Is this the day the Internet > >dies?", > > Yes, well, as far as Cloudflare is concerned, -anything- that stands in the > way of them doing absolutely anything, and whatever the f**k they want, > MUST necessarily be the End Of The World As We Know It. It would not be > wise for anyone to take any of Cloudflare's ludicrous hyperbole seriously, > especially while they are, one the one hand, -selling- DDoS protection, > even as they are also -providing- DDoS protection to DDoS gerenation > services... as they routinely do, and as they routinely claim it is their > God-given right to do (e.g. www.0x-booter.pw). > > >... a reference to the fact that they acknowledge they (at the time) > >were about to take content offline for what were non-required reasons. > > I, for one, would like to know just what in the hell Cloudflare considers > to be "required reasons" for them ceasing their HTTP reverse proxy service > to some particular FQDN. As far as I have been able to tell, over the > years, Cloudflare has been very insistant that there are -no- reasons that > would -ever- require them to cease providing services, even to terrorist > and child porn sites... at least nothing shourt of an outright court order. > > But this is all a digression from the issue here, which is just 2019-03, > a proposal that only deals with the use and misuse of Internet number > resources, PERIOD. > > >Getting depeered by transits, losing IX memberships, and having gear > seized > >by authorities all seem like potential disincentives. Having a bunch of > >NCC-allocated IP space doesn't matter when you are unable to use it. > > I refer you again to the unescapable fact that, even as we speak, the > company called Universal IP solution Corp. is still a RIPE member in good > standing. It is lying low, for now, but could be back in business and > undertaking new hijacks -tomorrow-, all with the air of perfect legitimacy > which is conferred upon it by its ongoing formal RIPE membership. > > > Regards, > rfg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190402/471c0e58/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]