[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

In message <qjgJ+XCzz1ncFA0a at highwayman.com>, 
Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:

>It is NOT possible (for experts or almost anyone else) to accurately
>evaluate who is performing BGP hijacks...

I did not intend to participate any further in this discussion, above and
beyond what I already have done, but I fell compelled to at least point out
the intellectual dishonesty of the above assertion.

In the summer of last year, 2018, I took steps to point out, in a very public
way, on the NANOG mailing list, two notable hijacking situations that came
to my attention *and* also to identify, by name, the actors that were quite
apparently behind each of those.  In neither of those instances was there
ever even any serious attempt, by either of the relevant parties, to refute
-any- of my very public allegations.

One of those was BitCanal, which was widely recognized as having participated
in hijackings for literally years on end.  Subsequent to my public allegations,
various outher parties took it upon themselves to actually reduce the
connectivity of this rogue company, with the ultimate effect being that the
company had trouble finding any connectivity anywhere.  These are historical
facts and easily verifiable by anyone taking the time to look into the full
historical record.

The other situation involved a company calld D2 International Investment
Ukraine, Ltd. and its apparent alter ego, Universal IP Solution Corp.
Both companies were later revealed to have been performing hijacks in the
service of a complex criminal enterprise which had as its goal a great
deal of so-called "ad fraud".  This entire complex scheme purportedly netted
the perpetrators in excess of $29 million (USD) and resulted in numerous
international criminal indictments:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/12/how-3ves-bgp-hijackers-eluded-the-internet-and-made-29m/

Neither of these two situations were in any sense ambiguous, and it is the
very height of intellectual dishonesty to suggest otherwise.

I understand that various people do not approve of the current propsal
as written.   That is their right.  I would ask however that the opposition
not marshall provably bogus arguments to support what I feel, equally
strongly, is a totally wrong-headed view of the present proposal.


Regards,
rfg