RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey () worldnet att net>]

Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these
laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
these there will be some arrests.

Now beyond that I don't know, but I am sure that being a
co-conspirator to any number of illegal acts by facilitating
them through what is set as the standard of "operational
negligence", i.e. that what is generally expected of you, is
still prosecutable. And when the first round of Network
Admin's go to jail for being complicit in these frauds, the
tunes regarding "hey you cant do this to us" will all vanish
as your individual lawyers tell you to shut-up before
contempt citations cost you more jail time.

I wish this was different or that the general class of
Admin's wasn't willing to fight this out - but after a few
people wind up in jail, the general tune will change - I
assure you.

My one embedded comment in caps below "TSG -->"

Todd Glassey

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Loftis [mailto:mloftis () wgops com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:04 AM
To: todd glassey; Robert A. Hayden; nanog () merit edu
Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True


Yah but that's all akin to asking hte telephone company to
make a log of
each and every phone conversation above and beyond billing
records.

Unless you get billed per-piece of e-mail, or per HTTP
connection an ISP
should have to nor need ot keep a log of that data and be
legally compelled
to divulge any of that.

TSG --> EXCEPT THAT THEY BECOME A PARTNER TO THE DECEPTION
BY THEIR FACILITIES CONTINUING TO FACILITATE THE FRAUD.
LOOK - IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT - BUT IT IS WHAT'S COMING - SO DO
YOU WANT TO BE READY FOR IT OR SLAMMED BY IT? TAKE YOUR
PICK.

TSG --> THE WORST PART IS IF SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SENDS
THIS ILLEGAL DATA GRAM TO YOU AND YOU FORWARD IT, YOU
TECHNICALLY BECOME A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN WHAT CAN ONLY BE
DESCRIBED AS "INTERSTATE FRAUD BY WIRE" AND THAT BRINGS THE
FBI INTO IT POST HASTE.

Just my $.02

TSG --> JUST MY $2.

TSG --> Todd


--On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:50 AM -0800 todd glassey
<todd.glassey () worldnet att net> wrote:

> How about this - The issue is really one of the commission
> of fraud and preventing it. So is NAT really an issue? I
> think not. I think it may be part of the legislation but
> that is because that the writers didn't have our input...
>
> So if you as an ISP have a good operating process model
and
> you log and sort your log data. What is the difference
> between a log that shows a bunch of stuff moving to a DHCP
> lease that was assigned to "xxx-yyyy" at "zz:zz" time on
> "dd-mm-yyyy" day. And that this lease was issued to
account
> "blah" - then you have the most evidence that is available
> over a TCP connection anyway. And its as good as the
> testimony of the logs regarding that there was only one
> address at the end of that pipe serviced.
>
> What I am saying is that any legislation preventing NAT is
> ludicrous and in fact counter productive. What it needs to
> be is legislation regarding how well ISP's have to audit
> what their customers do. That's it. Nothing more.
>
> Look - what is the difference between the log data shown
in
> a scenario where I don't use NAT but instead use
Microsoft's
> Internet Sharing Feature in the  Win2000 Servers? the
answer
> is simple. Poof NAT gateway. And so now it is illegal to
use
> a facility already distributed in every copy of MS Server
> deployed in these states....
>
> Look what this law-shtick is all about is the mandating
that
> ISP's know what their customers are doing data wise, on
> their wires (the ISP's) and that's it.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu
[mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On
> Behalf Of
> Robert A. Hayden
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
>
> Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security
> device as well?
> Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security
> breaches on my home
> network because they banned my firewall?  From a
> political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs
> that are
> complaining about NAT as being soft on security and
> encouraging hacking.
> In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be
> some milage
> here.
>
> I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been
> very open about
> people using NAT devices to the point that they are
> recommended in some
> cases as security devices as well as being sold by
Charter's
> professional-services group as inexpensive firewalls.
About
> six months
> ago I got a 1-page flier from Charter offering a 4-port
> Linksys and an
> on-site installation.
>
> Since a "NAT device" could include virtually any operating
> system and any
> PC with two or more ethernet ports, it might be better to
> push the
> "firewall" aspects  of them rather than try to defend or
> justify the
> MANY-to-1 routing aspects of NAT.