Why I don't want my data in "The Cloud"

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: July 21, 2010 4:37:10 AM EDT
> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
> Cc: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Why I don't want my data in "The Cloud"

> To be clear: the "real time blackhole lists" were not simple statements of fact.  They were designed to be input to 
> tools that rejected *all* traffic from those sources, with granularity of MTA, not granularity of usernames.
>
> The people who supported this did not merely assert facts.  They built (and still build) software tools that work by 
> such shutdowns.
>
> The idea was supposedly that if an MTA didn't take responsibility for spam passing through it, it would be *punished* 
> by shutting it down.  That's not a hidden agenda.  You can find that agenda described widely by the apologists for 
> that group, including on the websites that groups publishing such lists maintain.  So there is clear evidence of 
> their *intent* that the facts be used to *shut down* MTAs.
>
> The idea that mere "publication of facts" is not aggressive action is often a pattern of argument used by people who 
> want to collectively punish people.  We see that in almost all vigilantism.  For example, people merely publish 
> directories of "local homosexuals" or create "Jewish registries" in order to encourage attacks against them.
>
> On 07/20/2010 08:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
> >
> >   
> > > From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> > > Date: July 20, 2010 12:05:33 PM EDT
> > >     
> >   
> > > Dave - this is what many of us want remedied by laws requiring *network neutrality* (aka the legal principle of 
> > > "common carriage", not to be confused with "common carrier status").  In other words, "collective punishment" of 
> > > all users of an ISP based on claims about a subset of users' behavior would be barred by requiring all users' 
> > > content be treated fairly.
> > >
> > > A hotel (the classic legal example) of "common carriage" cannot be shut down because of the behavior of some guests.
> > >
> > > THe denial of core principles like "common carriage" is the first step on a slippery slope here.  This is where you 
> > > get when you argue that "network neutrality" as a legal principle is somehow a BAD IDEA.
> > >     
> > I'm a little unclear on how NN is somehow akin to common carriage.  Could you expand?
> >
> >
> >   
> > > I've had email MTAs that I depended on taken down by "spam vigilante" groups like Paul Vixie's.  This is not just a 
> > > problem of government shutdowns, but seriously intentional commercial denials of service, justified by claims of 
> > > "collective responsibility" and "the end (eliminating spam) justifies any means whatever".  This seems no different 
> > > from taking down a blog site because some of its users blog unwanted stuff.
> > >     
> > I admit I have no information about the exact instance of MTA being "taken down" by Paul Vixie that you mention.  
> > However, I know of many, many things Mr. Vixie has done to fight spam.  In no instance of which I am aware did he 
> > ever do anything _to_ an MTA.  His group has included countless IP addresses in lists posted on the Internet, 
> > claiming those IP addresses emit spam.  If others chose to read those lists and stop accepting e-mail from those IP 
> > addresses, I really do not see how you can claim Mr. Vixie did something to your MTA - especially since he was 
> > literally doing no more than stating a fact.
> >
> > Also, creation of such lists "seems no different from" you saying he is a "spam vigilante" on a public mailing list. 
> >  Both are simply claims about the character of another, although one is about a person and one is about an IP 
> > address.  Of course, his claim has far more proof than yours (actual spam in hand from that IP address every time I 
> > checked).
> >
> > Finally, if you cannot see the difference between someone actively engaging & utilizing my hardware, software, and 
> > bandwidth knowing I did not want them to do so, vs. someone posting a blog, you need to ruminate on the situation a 
> > bit longer. 
> >
> >
> > To be absolutely clear, I am vehemently against the idea of disallowing people to post lists of IP addresses and 
> > saying "I have seen this IP address so X to my Y," or anything of the sort, at least when it is factual info.  (I am 
> > not sure we should block fictional info, just limiting the scope of the discussion.)  Honestly, I'm shocked that you 
> > would argue for such an idea.
> >
> > On the flip side, I believe (although I haven't spent enough time thinking about it to be 1000000% certain) that 
> > allowing the gov't to shut down a shared hosting site because one customer is doing bad thing is also a bad idea.  
> > So I guess we have some common ground. :)
> >
> >   



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com