[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002

If you want that argument -

1. Several countries have a 'country link' concept to assert jurisdiction
of their antispam laws. So if a US or Australian citizen or ISP was
spammed, or a relay in their country abused etc they'd have jurisdiction.

2. Romania does have antispam legislation and there is a European
Parliament ruling dating back to 2002 related to spam

Quoting from  a romanian page passed through Google translate :

http://www.legi-internet.ro/articole-drept-it/spamul-aspecte-legislative-si-jurisprudentiale.html

e) In Romania, the legislation on spam is relatively recent and it was
adopted as a result of harmonization of national legislation with Community
law. (17)
<http://www.legi-internet.ro/articole-drept-it/spamul-aspecte-legislative-si-jurisprudentiale.html#c510>
Thus, the main laws relating to privacy and related to spammmingul are:
- Law .677 of 21 November 2001 on the protection of individuals with regard
to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data;
- Law no.506 of 17 November 2004 concerning the processing of personal data
and privacy in the electronic communications sector;
- In Additionally, GEO no.130 / 2000 on distance, through the provisions of
Article 16 in relation to Article 15 enshrines the opt-out method in the
context of the e-commerce Directive 31/2000 on leave to the states to
choose between opt-in and opt-out; Law no.365 / 2002 on electronic commerce
and establishes rules for the application opt-in categorical manner,
leading to an inconsistent girl GEO no.130 / 2000.

Linking domestic legal provisions and employment in the field of e-mail
opt-in comes after approving Ordinance no.130 / 2000 by Law No.51 / 2003,
which amended this.

Regarding the Law no.506 / 2004, this is a transposition into national law
of European Directive 58/2002 and requires opt-way relationship between
practitioners in the direct marketing and Internet users. This is provided
for by article 12, paragraph 1, which states that "It is prohibited to make
commercial communications through the use of automated calling systems that
do not require human intervention, by fax or by electronic mail, or by any
other method uses publicly available electronic communications services,
unless the subscriber concerned has given his prior express consent to
receive such communications. "

>From this rule there is an exception provided for in Article 2, which
concerns those who have obtained addresses when selling a product or
service, but provides a simple means and free recipient opposition. In
paragraph 3 states that are prohibited spam that hide the identity of the
sender or they work for, nor gives the recipient the opportunity to object.

The sanctions provided by the law are such contravention, if the violation
of its provisions was not the facts that constitute crimes.

 Thus, observing the provisions of Article 12, relating to unsolicited
communications are misdemeanors and are punishable by a fine of 50 million
lei to 1,000,000,000 lei, and for companies with a turnover of over
50,000,000,000 lei, notwithstanding the provisions of Ordinance No.2 / 2001
on the legal regime of contraventions, approved with amendments and
completions by Law no.180 / 2002, with subsequent amendments, with a fine
of up to 2% of turnover.

A competent independent authority in the fight against spam exunctionează
not yet, as a separate entity. Responsibilities in this regard incumbent
Ombudsman, the officials whom he has available. However there is a bill in
the House of Deputies adopted only in the meeting of March 8, 2005, which
establishes the national supervisory authority of the processing of
personal data. Also an important role in managing the problem of spam and
the processing of personal data plays Regulatory Authority for
Communications. Together they can work and professional associations to
adopt and enforce codes of conduct in the network. We find such French
model on professional associations or non-governmental and Netiquette code.

Regarding the competence of the courts and the right of individuals to go
to court, the Law no.677 / 2001 provides (Article 18) that:
      "(1) Without prejudice to the possibility of addressing the
supervisory authority, people subjects have the right to go to court to
defend the rights guaranteed by this law, they have been violated.
      (2) Any person who has suffered damage as a result of the processing
of personal data carried out illegally, may address competent court for
repair.
      (3) is the competent court within whose jurisdiction the applicant
resides. Application for summons is exempt from stamp duty. "

Such a person, if he has not filed a complaint in court, we can address the
Ombudsman, according to article 27 of Law no.677 / 2001.
As regards the law applicable to this international element are not made
​​explicit reference so it will Specific rules apply to common law.
On Nov 6, 2014 8:38 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:55:52PM +0000, anfernandez at lavanguardia.es
> wrote:
> > When RIPE is actually a judge that decided to protecting internet
> piracy. You can be sure that RIPE will open an expedient to any LIR that do
> not pay its fee, but you can keep waiting to see RIPE opening  an expedient
> to investigate bad use of internet by one of their associated LIRs.
>
> It should be made totally clear that spamming, pirating movies, and so
> on is a legitimate usage of IP addresses IF THE JURISDICTION OF THE LIR
> IN QUESTION PERMITS IT.
>
> We might not *like* it, but if it's legal in, say, Romania to send out
> large amounts of e-mail, attacking the RIPE NCC for providing IP addresses
> to a LIR in .ro is not the way to fix it.
>
> Now, we all might agree that SPAM is evil, and pirating moviez is also
> evil.  What about encouraging political debate?  China might have a
> stance here.  What about pictures of men kissing men?  Russia might not
> like that.
>
> Things that are totally inacceptable for some parties are things that
> other parties want protected by freedom of speech, or freedom of doing
> business.
>
> So, the NCC can, will and *should* not act on "things people do not
> like" - it will (and does) act if being lied to, or if a judge decides
> that a LIR's business is illegal.
>
> In this particular case, I wonder why nobody is yelling at the upstream
> who is happily forward packets for that AS...  due dilligence at
> accepting customer prefixes would have easily caught the announcements.
>
> (Yes, I understand that I'm now officially part of the problem, as
> I'm obviously not willing to do everything technically possible to
> stop particular sorts of badness)
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20141106/03621ef8/attachment.html>