[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:49:40 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes that is what I said about a legal obligation versus good
> citizenship
> 
Okay, but ianal but RIPE **does have the obligation to report crime**,
legally. RIPE is not a 'citizen'  it is a **public** legal person with
certain rights and obligations, if RIPE was a private organization or
private person there would be different legal obligations.

There surely is no obligation on RIPE to go and investigate submitted
data? Only when (or if) RIPE becomes aware of a fraud or fraudulent
representation, or theft, or any crime, does it of course have to report
that crime - this we may have to check with RIPE legal as it is law and
not for discussions

I think at the moment  RIPE simply does not know or realize that it is
fraud to make false representations in order to obtain a resource...

I am sure that if there is theft of cash/money at RIPE, then RIPE will
report that theft.

Anyway, this is the same problem with the definition of abuse and why
it needs to be properly defined (so that I understand what is crime -
what is abuse and everything in between)

Just for the record: We are still here with the definition of abuse:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"

Current discussions about what needs to be added still? (add if I am
missing anyone or anything please) 

(1)
Gert Doering suggested that "there are legal reason why someone could
infringe on someon else's use rights"
 - added the 'non sanctioned' 

(2)
unauthorized access / hacking / and/or breaking in 
( Dave Crocker -  abuse concerns unauthorized access  )
(Andre - breaking in is crime, abuse is use something for bad purpose )

(3) causing damage to others
( Dave Crocker -  "and to actions that inflict damage on others" )
(  Michele Neylon - I like the idea of “damage” or “harm” on others
The “infringe on usage .. “ thing didn’t seem very clear to me and I
don’t see how that would apply to spam etc)
(Andre - damage is a result of an action or result of abuse? crime?)

(4) Fake WHOIS records
(Ronald F. Guilmette some whois records are cleverly constructed bovine
excrement )
(Andre - fake/wrong whois records - are not abuse - is an error or it
is fraud or something else)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andre

  
> --srs
> 
> > On 17-Aug-2016, at 2:46 PM, ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:38:09 +0530
> > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think the term that's being collectively  groped for is whether
> >> ripe ncc has a reporting obligation in case it discovers criminal
> >> activity
> >> 
> >> The number of cases where such reporting is mandatory in law and
> >> not simply a matter of good citizenship is rather limited - threat
> >> to life, kidnap, etc.
> >> 
> > No, not so much...
> > 
> > It is not a "point of view" whether RIPE has the obligation to file
> > criminal complaints when there is fraud committed against RIPE
> > 
> > Under Dutch Law, We have already heard how RIPE is registered...
> > 
> > In fact, if it was a public company, it would not be much different
> > either..
> > 
> > Speaking generally, in most places in the world where you are
> > working or operating the assets of someone other than yourself
> > their are many additional things that become relevant to your own
> > operation...
> > 
> > I think that we may want to hear from RIPE legal in that regard
> > 
> > But, what I am also saying is that socially, civil society and
> > simple ethics and good custodial management, basic decency and so
> > very very many other things demand that RIPE files criminal
> > complaints when there is crime.
> > 
> > For example: Should an official of RIPE steal money at RIPE there
> > is an obligation to file a criminal complaint.
> > 
> > Same principles apply all throughout
> > 
> > Andre
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> --srs
> >> 
> >> On 17-Aug-2016, at 2:26 PM, Rob Evans <rhe at nosc.ja.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> When anyone commits fraud to obtain a resource from RIPE, RIPE
> >>>> has the responsibility to file criminal charges against that
> >>>> criminal.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am not saying that I think RIPE should file criminal charges, I
> >>>> am saying that not doing so is in itself a questionable action.
> >>> 
> >>> Well, to be pedantic, *criminal* charges are filed by the police
> >>> or other law-enforcment body, not by companies. :)
> >>> 
> >>> Rob
> >>> 
> > 
> >