[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6

In message <A6758E77120840A9B4AE05CF971F9A7A at SuperPC>, 
"Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:

>Anyway, I see that both, you and Fernandez, are agree with my point of 
>view - the focus should be directed to the ISP internet service providers. 

Well, they are in a position to disconnect the bad actors who are their
customers.

But as I have said, and as you also have observed, many of the ISPs
are themselves bad actors.  So the question naturally arises "Who
has the ability and/or willingness to disconnect THEM?"

The answer, unfortunately, is that the pervasive financial incentives,
all up and down the food chain of the Internet are such that nobody
wants to disconnect anybody, ever.  A sizeable ISP with valuable
contracts with one or more backbone providers would have to practically
murder someone over the Internet before those contracts would be
terminated.

>It worries me to know that you have done this for several years.

I am by no means alone.  But yes, it worries me too.  (I have been
actively campaigning against spammers and other criminals on the
Internet for more than 15 years.)

>I decided to report spam and phishing just two months ago.

Welcome to the club!

>And it is already 
>clear to me that the bad providers don't care about the complaints. My 
>complaints always have copies to spam at uce.gov and crime.internet at dpf.gob.br 
>(Federal Police of Brazil). Nothing happens!

Congratulations.  You have received your first lesson about why the
Internet is so fucked up that it is often the butt of jokes on late
night television, and why it is so fucked up that virtually every
day now there are news stories about hacking, cracking, phishing,
DDoSing, identity theft, and spamming, and why it has been allowed
to get so fucked up that it is now on the agenda for discussion
whenever notable world political leaders meet face to face, for
example the upcoming meeting between Xi Jinping and Barak Obama.

No one can deny that the problems of the Internet are no longer mere
child's play.  But the connectivity industry continues to do its level
best to turn a blind eye, and to ignore all these problems because
they believe that it is in their economic interests to do so.  In the
long run, they will be proven wrong, but perhaps not before the most
senior decision makers have already cashed out and moved to the Bahamas.

>I think you have been very polite when classify these companies - "deep 
>reluctance to accept any rules or regulations" - "Wild West" - "driven by 
>quasi-religious faith in laisses-faire" - "testosterone". I would call it 
>sociopathy and greed.

Greed, certainly.  But perhaps not "sociopathy".

Wikipedia says:

    Psychopathy, also known as -- though sometimes distinguished from --
    sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder
    characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy
    and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. 

In my own country (USA) we do not use the word "sociopath" to describe
such people.  Rather, we use the somewhat less derogatory term "capitalist".

One thing you have to understand also is that the fundamental rules of
capitalism, as practiced here in the U.S. and also in much of Europe
and elsewhere, do not even really give the leaders of commercial
organizations any real choice about whether or not they may exhibit
such things as empthy and remorse.  They have shareholders, to whom
they must report.  If they say "We have reduced our company income by
disconnecting this bad customer, because they were ruining the Internet
for everyone." then the shareholders might reasonably claim that the
leader in question had failed to fulfull his/her "fiduciary duty" to
maximize profits.  This is, in many instances a legal requirement, and
the company leader in question might actually be sued for this "failure".

Legal requirements relating to the fiduciary duty of company leaders
(to maximize profits) which are common throughout the developed world
do not make any exceptions for the natural human emotion of empathy.
Thus, one might argue that capitalism, as practiced in the developed
world here in the 21st century, is, in a sense, fundamentally sociopathic,
given the Wikipedia definition of that term, as quoted above.  (And
I feel sure that there are many people today in, for example, Greece,
who might readily agree with that view.)

>I'm a liberal and I put the individual and meritocracy above the State and 
>any company.

You are contradicting yourself.  Companies are just the property of
collections of individuals (but with important additional constraints,
as noted above).  You cannot say that you are "for" individuals but
"against" companies.  It makes no sense.  (See also "Citizens United v.
FEC".)

(And by the way, political labels are not very useful.  I myself am an
ardent "libertarian" with respect to myself personally.  I firmly believe
that I should be allowed to own a gun, to have sex with anybody or anything
I want, and to cheat other people out of their inheritance money with no
legal consequences.  However I am a "liberal" with respect to everyone
else.  I firmly believe that nobody else should be allowed to own a gun,
that nobody should be allowed to cheat ME out of MY inheritance money, 
and that the sexual exploitation of hamsters should be strictly and
harshly prohibited when performed by any individuals who are not me.)

>And therefore, the right to privacy of the individual is 
>inalienable. The companies, Enzu standard, use this rhetoric of 
>self-regulation, freedom to private initiative, to hide their arbitrariness 
>against the individual.

See above.

People and companies _always_ use whatever excuses come immediately to
hand in an effort to excuse their bad behavior.  You seem shocked by
this, but it is not at all new.  It has been going on at least since
mankind first walked upright, and probably earlier.

>In my last complaint I changed tactics. My complaints are copied to The 
>Economist and The Wall Street Journal. Timely I will send a dossier to this 
>media. Maybe someone there decides to question the procedures of these 
>companies...

I would not get your hopes up too high about that if I were you.  There
are already shocking stories every day in the newspapers about the gross
and grotesque failures of companies... including Internet based companies...
to do the right thing.  In many cases, these stories have even vastly more
tragic consequences that whatever bad behaviou Enzu has been up to lately.
Here is just one perfect and very recent example:

   http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34044506

Two people are dead because a crooked company that was already selling
false dreams to millions of lonely men failed to properly protect the
confidential information of their own customers.

>considering the 
>hatred that this type of e-mail marketing has aroused around the world do 
>you think it's possible that magazine or newspaper can be interested in the 
>subject?

Generally speaking, no.

Unless there is a "kicker"... an extra special element to the story...
then it is not really "news".  Here are two examples of stories that
had "kickers" that I was personally involed in:

    http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/10/pill-gang-used-microsofts-network-to-attack-krebsonsecurity-com/

    http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/11/network-hijackers-exploit-technical-loophole/

These days, there is so much bad stuff happening on the Internet every day
that it takes something REALLY special and unusual to get the attention of
the press, and even then, the stories quietly die out in a few days time,
and nothing really changes.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/31/weeks-after-attack-millions-of-opm-cyber-victims-still-not-protected/


Regards,
rfg