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

In message <83185.1554061062 at segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F.
Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> writes
>
>In message <sIJ4kBCqwOocFAf1 at highwayman.com>, 
>Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:
>
>>However, it is not necessarily clear at all and writing a policy which
>>assumes that it will always be clear is in my view unwise.
>>
>>Assuming that experts will always be able to determine who is at fault
>>(along with deciding whether an event they know little of is accidental
>>or deliberate) is to live in a world that I do not recognise.
>
>I disagree completely.  The world would be one that you most certainly
>*would* recognize.
>
>Your argument basically boils down to the following unsustainable
>assertion:  We cannot assume that we will always, and in 100% of all
>cases, be able to accurately recognize "crime" when we see it.  Therefore
>we should have -no- criminal laws.

I don't agree ... what I am saying is that it can be very hard for real
experts to agree. These are people who consider all possible reasons for
events to occur and then offer their opinion as which reasons can be
completely ruled out and which are unlikely to be actual explanation in
the particular case.

As a result we seldom operate justice by using experts (whether they
agree or not) as the ultimate arbiters of how cases are decided.

Instead, experts are used by those who are charged with dispensing
justice as a means of understanding what is likely to have gone on, and
these people then weigh the various opinions of the experts (or indeed
their unanimity) in coming to their decision.

>>If the policy stopped at the statement that unauthorised BGP hijacking
>>was unacceptable behaviour then I would be happy with it.
>
>I have no idea what country you live in

the United Kingdom (it's fairly easy to work that out BTW)

>, but would you likewise find it
>equally acceptable if your local national legislature also and likewise
>passed a resolution calling for murder to be entirely decriminalized,
>while adding that it is the sense of the legislature that murder shall
>nontheless, and henceforth, be deemed "unacceptable behaviour" deserving
>of public derision and scorn, but no further penalties whatsoever?

As it happens (it's tricky when appealing to completely irrelevant
matters isn't it?) the UK does not have a statute that makes murder a
crime -- so it might be quite complicated to decriminalise it !

People are instead charged under the common law -- the court then
decides whether or not they are guilty (often having considered the
evidence of experts whose duty is explicitly defined as being to assist
the court, albeit they are paid by either the prosecution or the
defence). However if the accused is found guilty then the sentence is
specified by statute (which, because it gives no leeway to the court,
leads to numerous unfair outcomes which I will not elaborate here).

So a policy which said that unauthorised BGP hijacking was unacceptable
behaviour and charged RIPE NCC with addressing the problem if it was
caused by anyone who used RIPE resources would I think be helpful.

Telling RIPE NCC exactly how to recognise and deal with BGP hijacking
(and specifying exactly how experts and no one else will determine what
has occurred) is I think unhelpful and attempts to move forward this way
are likely to be counterproductive.

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190331/df78f3b9/attachment.sig>