Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way

[Steve Sobol <sjsobol () shell nacs net>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 12:58:12PM -0700, Curt Howland wrote:
> Karl,
>
> *You* may wish to make your life more convenient by bringing
> government force into your relationship with other network
> providers, why by what divine right do you get to impose your
> convenience on others by force?

What's your alternative solution?

> Just go ahead and filter the offenders. 

This is ok after the fact. But it doesn't work when you're under
attack and trying to get help.

> It is MUCH more effective to guide business policies by the
> lure of money than by the gun.

I agree, but I don't think your solution, in this particular case,
is the right one.

> Maybe if it were someone advocating force against YOU you 
> wouldn't be quite so pleased at the prospect as when you think
> the cavalry is coming to rescue YOU.

If I was running a backbone, and I refused to help stop a Denial of Service
attack, couldn't I be considered to be aiding and abetting the criminal who
was performing the DoS? Couldn't I be held liable? I mean, in this case,
we're not talking gray areas here, like spamming and/or third-party mail
relaying. We're talking about smurfing, an action which is clearly illegal,
which clearly causes damage to the target network...

If I'm made aware of someone DoS'ing using my network, whether a LAN or, in
the backbones' case, a WAN, and I tell the complainant to bugger off, or
ignore the situation, I deserve whatever (legal) retaliation I get.
Including criminal charges if they apply. Including civil liability.

IOW - I agree with Karl.

-- 
Steven J. Sobol - Founding Member, Postmaster/Webmaster, ISP Liaison --
Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail (FREE) - Dedicated to education about,
and prevention of, Unsolicited Broadcast E-mail (UBE), also known as SPAM.
Info: http://www.ybecker.net