Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

[leo vegoda <]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 11:07:12AM, paul@localhost wrote: Re: RE: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

[...]

> I didn't realize committing fraud or other illegal acts was not 'network
> abuse'!? BTW this thread got morphed to child porn earlier, so I'm not the
> one pushing the envelope here :)
> 
> Abusive email, mailbombing, committing fraud, hacking, etc. are all network
> abuse. If RIPE imposes an AUP 'WRT spam and network abuse' then I don't see
> why you would want to make a specific exclusion for credit card fraud or any
> other illegal acts on the basis that the cops deal with that stuff.

I think there is an important distinction to be made here. Is the abuse
an abuse *of* the network or an abuse *on* the network? 

The reason for this important distinction is that someone with networking 
clue will not necessarily have legal clue. An ISP's abuse team may well 
be able to determine whether a DoS attack originated from one of their 
customers. Whether they can determine the legality of other (potentially)
abusive actions is moot. 

I would argue that investigations into illegal activity should be done
by the appropriate police forces and courts. Police and courts in some
countries have powers not available to others. These organisations
presumably have pre-existing relationships via Interpol, etc... that
makes cross-border investigatiosn easier. The actions you want dealt 
with (fraud, hacking, kiddie porn) are already illegal in most countries. 

Can you see a substantial benefit in having an organisation that registers 
Internet resources begin to investigate crimes that are already illegal but 
just happen to be carried out over this new medium? 

Regards,

-- 
leo vegoda (speaking for himself)
san diego, california