[anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)

Folks,

I think this particular spur of the conversation has hit a usefulness
dead-end.

Let's bring it back to something more concrete and less ad hominem please.

Brian

Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301  tel: +35316609040  fax: +35316603666
web: http://www.heanet.ie/

On 11/08/2016 14:11, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:15:50 -0700
> "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>> andre at ox.co.za wrote:
>>> 1. When we find crime, child porn, credit card scams, etc on
>>> networks, we should immediately report it to the Police in the
>>> jurisdiction where the data is.
>>
>> The above is delusional on so many levels I'm not sure even where to
>> begin.
>>
> Your ad hominem statement makes whatever you say less trustworthy, I do
> the same, so does Suresh, so I guess I can hardly point fingers, I have
> also called people delusional, mental, nuts or bofh  - it helps to
> break the sheep down and makes wolves angry that they type silly
> things :)
> 
> Of course, I am not delusional, I may be wrong, I may be mistaken, mis-informed,
> stupid or even ignorant but to tell me that I am delusional is obviously and patently untrue...
> 
> This already detracts from anything valid that you may (or may not) say
> later on in your reply...
> 
>> In the first place, who exactly is this royal "we"?
>>
> We as in us the people, I believe that we already discussed that, as in
> we, the people on this mailing list :)
> 
> including the Queen, actually including all Queens, even Freddy 
> if they are in reading distance of this list :)
> 
>> In the second place, what exactly is the "jurisdiction where the data
>> is" for 82.221.130.101?  Is that Belize?  Is that Iceland?  Is that
>> Russia? Do you know?  Does RIPE NCC know?  If you are claiming that
>> you know, then please do enlighten us... or at least me... as to
>> exactly HOW you know the actual jurisdiction is in this case.
>>
> Well it could be anywhere right now - but it will be somewhere at that
> point in time when someone needs to apply for a search warrant.
> 
>> Thirdly, weren't you the same fellow who was just arguing a few
>> messages back that "crime" only exists in relation to a specific
>> jurisdiction anyway?  maybe the *real* jurisdiction of 82.221.130.101
>> is the Principality of Sealand, where there are no laws prohibiting
>> the buying and selling of other people's credit card numbers.  So
>> what "should" we do then?
>>
> legally? - nothing. If the society and people of whatever sovereign
> country wants to do whatever they want - this is their business and not
> mine. (I am not an American, maybe if I become an American I will have
> to start kicking butt and taking names all over the planet, I guess
> you will have to train me then... :) in Africa we like to believe in
> the goodness of humanity, to truly appreciate that people are generally
> evil pathetic selfish shitty little creatures is not in our concept of
> Ubuntu - in fact until of late some of these words did not even exist in our
> local cultures )
> 
> If it is truly heinous we can lobby your congress to send a drone?
> 
> I am of course joking, but legally - nothing - Internet wise, you are
> working up a proposed policy document about how crime should be 
> handled? 
> 
> But, definitely, there is a big difference between abuse, actual crime
> and crime intelligence ?or not? 
> 
> do you agree/disagree with that? (trying to have/add/find some value
> in a devolved thread...)
> 
>> Finally, did you miss it when I posted, just not very long ago, the
>> following link to a BBC story that describes in some detail that
>> police are overwehelmed and that they can't even keep up with this
>> the great and growing masses of cybercrime anymore?
>>
>>     http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36731694
>>
> But we are CIVIL society and more interestingly, we are cross
> border, cross cultural and cross social
> 
> The law enforcement problem in the UK is not an International one
> and still, like you yourself said, we (me/I/You/Us :) ) don't have the
> power of a state
> 
> In another thread you are discovering how there are questions of legal
> identity about RIPE that "we" are not sure of ourselves :)
> 
> 
>>> We must not, discuss this on a public list before the Police has at
>>> the very least, had the opportunity to first ensure that they have
>>> secured the data/servers/evidence that may be required to prosecute.
>> Gee!  And here I was starting to think that you were in favor of free
>> speech on the Internet!  I guess not.  Sorry.  My mistake.  (You
>> apparently want to tell me what I "must not" say.  That's not my
>> definition of free speech.)
>>
> 
> if someone is actively selling credit card, identity theft child porn,
> etc. in an ideal world, I would like to see those criminals properly
> investigated, prosecuted and sentenced
> 
> Free Speech is a right that has to be in balance with it's
> responsibility.
> 
> You cannot claim that hate speech - is free speech - so free speech has
> limits - in terms of the other rights of other people
> 
> For example - little children have the right not to be abused by
> pedophiles - and publishing child pornography - IS NOT FREE SPEECH
> 
> similarly - not giving criminals a "heads up" or null routing their
> traffic and/or obstructing the functionality of law enforcement, laws
> of countries and the rule of law - is not "free speech"
>  
> 
>> Also, I refer you again to this:
>>
>>      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36731694
>>
>> and I remind you again that you are living in a fantasy world.
>> Speaking from direct personal experience, it doesn't matter how many
>> months of lead time you give law enforcement.  They simply DO NOT put
>> down their doughnuts and rush out to image servers until *after*
>> reports of serious cybercrimes appear in the media.
>>
> it depends on the priorities, resources and many other factors.
> 
> And, "reminding me that I live in a fantasy world" simply dilutes
> credibility as obviously I live in the same sewer as the rest of us.
>  
>> These days, the only times when they are actually pro-active and
>> actually ahead of the curve is in terrorism-related cases.
>>
> I refer you to this article:
> 
>       http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36731694
> 
> They say all of it - they do not say that they are all over terrorism...
> 
> See, I can do that also :)
> 
>>> 2. If, after a reasonable amount of time, we receive no feedback (as
>>> in back off, we are investigating this - or we are busy prosecuting
>>> or whatever) then we should do what?
>>
>> See above.  For a long while I did exactly what you think should be
>> done. I tried to always inform law enforcement early and often, about
>> all of the really bad crap I found.  And I gave them a fair
>> opportunity to tell me to keep quiet, because they had an ongoing
>> investigation.  So far, no matter what I've reported to them, and no
>> matter how bad it was, they haven't even given me a courtesy call
> 
> yeah, I feel your pain. I may be in the same boat as you, I guess it
> is because I called some of them a bunch of incompetent troglodytes that
> could not even investigate someone breaking into a paper bag... they
> tend to kinda delete my emails and information even before reading it...
> 
> I do not really blame them, I can be a pain in the ass sometimes :)
> just from reading you a bit, I think you may be in the same boat
> 
>> back.  In short, they are worse than useless.  They are a waste of my
>> time.  They don't care what I do or say or find, and I no longer care
>> what they do or say or think or find.  On those rare occasions when
>> they actually do bust some cybercriminal, I applaud them, but usually
>> the arrest only comes years after the criminals have already been
>> well-known to be doing their crimes.  (And as I learned recently, in
>> Russia, at least, when a criminal of any kind gets busted, the
>> authorities don't even release their names.  So as a non-LE person,
>> you can't even be sure that the Russians aren't just making the whole
>> thing up for publicity reasons, you know, to make Putin look good,
>> like the _alleged_ arrest of "fifty" cybercriminals that is _alleged_
>> to have taken place in Russia earlier this year.  What a nice round
>> number to release to the media!)
>>
> doing pretty press releases is always a bonus for budgets :)
> 
>>> ...but you cannot simply find a random domain, note content on it
>>> that seems as if there may possibly be criminal activity and/or
>>> abuse.
>>
>> I can't?  Oh.  Sorry.   Too late!  I already did.  Sorry.  I didn't
>> know that rule until now. :-)
>>
> Okay, well, now you know :)
> 
>>> I cannot publish anything about this website or this content on there
>>> as their is simply no due process, no proof of actual illegal
>>> activity, no actual trial, guilt, verdict, etc.
>>
>> That's quite alright,  YOU don't have to. I already did.
>>
> Oh, thanks for that then, I did not notice 
> (btw sarcasm is the lowest form of wit - i'll betcha I am lower than
> you :)  )
> 
>> See, *I* don't have the power of a state.  I can't send people to
>> jail. I can only bad-mouth them in public and hope that other people
>> realize what criminals they are, and then stop trading packets with
>> them.
>>
> yes, *sigh* if only now we had that credibility thing going for us...
> btw - do you still run your blacklists? - links? info?
> 
>> Because the penalities that I personally can impose are so limited and
>> weak, I don't have to make a case against any party "beyond a
>> reasonable doubt".  If I make a case aganst a party where the
>> "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. 51%) says that they are guilty,
>> then people who read what I write, and agree with my analysis may
>> stop accepting packets from the crooks I identify.  That is a
>> reasonable outcome.
>>
>>> We should start filtering/editing/censoring content deciding to
>>> 'null-route' entire IP ranges because of our content decisions?
>>
>> I do it every day, at least for my own server.  It's called "spam
>> filtering".  (I don't like spam.)
>>> seriously?
>> Oh yes, seriously.
>>
> everyone claims to hate spam - yet in many decades it is a persistent
> problem, I wonder why...
> 
> Oh, yes, it is a BALLS thing. 
> 
> Twitter.com does not accept abuse complaints - so what do we do?
> oh, I know, I know - we continue accepting all emails from twitter.com 
> in case our users get upset - bwahahahaha
> 
> Does twitter.com ever feel any pain? heck no. unimaginable thing that.
> 
>>> We can also maybe build a huge wall around our networks? Maybe we
>>> should not route any traffic that we have not properly inspected?
>>
>> Works for me!  Sounds like a perfect description of my firewall.
>>
> ROFL, I was joking - but you can also just pull out the
> fiber/cable/antenna/dish :)
> 
> Andre
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> rfg
>>
> 
>