[anti-abuse-wg] [cooperation-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT

2013/2/1 Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>

> On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:51, "Nash, Steve" <snash at arbor.net> wrote:
>
> > - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the
> remit of any one RIPE WG.
> > - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of
> Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content.
> > - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention
> that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow.
>
> It's almost impossible to come up with a consensus definition of terrorism
> for just one country, let alone across the RIPE service region. Consensus
> on a region-wide definition of illegal content seems unlikely too. So I
> suggest we don't go down those rat-holes. Instead we should engage with law
> enforcement and governments to reach a common understanding on what
> practical steps can be taken or are being taken, discuss the
> legal/technical issues, develop processes for exchanging information, doing
> liaison and outreach, etc. IIUC this is already happening.
>
>
> Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG?
>
> No. IMO the current arrangements seem to be fine. IIUC NCC staff and
> representatives of relevant WGs are already involved in this project and
> engage more generally with governments and law enforcement on things like
> crime prevention and counterterrorism. If the existing arrangements are not
> working, we first need to find out why before deciding how to fix the
> problem(s). Creating a new WG or a Task Force (say) seems to be putting the
> cart before the horse. Even more so when it's not clear what's broken or
> needs to be fixed.
>
> Do you have any insight that the community's current activities in this
> area are unsatisfactory? Can you explain how a new WG or whatever would
> improve matters?
>
> > I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way,
> otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily
> engaged in future dialogue.
>
> RIPE and the NCC are already engaged AFAICT.
>
> So IETF is (thus internet) is above the «wire» and below the application.
RIPE is a (big) RIR is delivering IP/AS: it is clearly in the realm
described earlier and in the  RIR policy stuff.
Terrorism is an highly politicial content and behaviour based definition,
it is way up the level of application.
So it seems to me it is clearly not relevant to treat terrorism threat at
the media level.

Should the media be aware of the content? Yes, if like louis XIV you want
to create patent for editing in order to censor the ideas.

The printing was not responsible for the fall of monarchy, it was the
ideas. You don't fight ideas by fighting the media that carries them. You
fight them with education.

For the record France is not a  monarchy anymore and «Colporteur»
(alternative reseller of books printed in Holland) made the idea spread
whatever the illusion of control the monarchy had.

History repeats itself, you can try to control media to fight idea, but it
is inefficient and counterproductive. Legit citizens that read the RIPE
mailing list will at a moment or another blow the whistle regarding their
concern of a techno censorship.

I am disappointed by RIPE an organisation based in the country that so
dearly protected the spread of ideas that were considered «terrorists» by
the monarchy, and a major actor in the «Philosophie des Lumières» to side
with the actual initiative for obscurantism.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130201/538d3efb/attachment.html>