nanog mailing list archives
Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way
From: Hal Murray <murray () pa dec com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 98 16:19:59 -0700
If A NOC refuses to obey the law and investigate on behalf of a paying client that DoS has occurred than they become party to a criminal act after the fact and are as guilty as the originator of the attack and can be held accountable and their staff can arrested and you have the right to sue for $4000.00 as do each one of your individual customers.
The catch in there is "paying client". The typical smurf packet hops through several organizations (ISPs). The victim only has a contract with his ISP. Where did $4K come from? Do you have a URL describing that law?
Current thread:
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way, (continued)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Henry Linneweh (Jun 20)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Joe Shaw (Jun 20)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Henry Linneweh (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Brian Wallingford (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Dean Robb (Jun 23)
- NANOG 13 Videos on-line Jeffrey Payne (Jun 23)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Joe Shaw (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Brett Frankenberger (Jun 21)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Joe Shaw (Jun 22)
- smurf amplifier vs one workstation Brian Pape (Jun 22)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Hal Murray (Jun 22)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Karl Denninger (Jun 22)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Curt Howland (Jun 17)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Steve Sobol (Jun 17)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Karl Denninger (Jun 16)
- Re: Government scrutiny is headed our way Steve Sobol (Jun 16)