North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Statements against new.net?
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Simon Higgs exclaimed: > At 12:06 PM 3/16/01 -0500, Jeff Workman wrote: > > > 4. Stability of the root zone and criminal consequences > > It should be recognized that in the United States, altering DNS > records to the detriment of a pre-existing organization is covered > under federal computer fraud statute, 18 United States Code, Section > 1030[6]. As a result, criminal convictions have resulted from the > alteration of DNS information[7]. Most countries now have similar > laws. I don't recall saying squat about modifying the root zone. I was referring to local nameservers that are under your (or my) administrative control. Tell me how this is any different than "content filtering" packages that are in use today (X-Stop comes to mind.) Sure, the underlying mechanism is different, but the result is the same. User tries to access a site that is administratively prohibited, and is redirected to a local web page explaining to them why. Are we going to prosecute all of these organizations now? If it's *my* DNS server running on *my* equipment using *my* bandwidth, then I can do whatever I want to with it, right? Just as long as I don't try any cache poisoning foo or otherwise propagate my authoritative 'new.net' zone to other DNS servers that aren't under my administrative control. > So instead of wasting energy making the case against you for the > prosecution, why don't you use that energy productively in this situation? > New.net already know this. They don't yet know how to go about it. Why doesn't new.net start sending me monthly paychecks? Since they're *all* about money, then if I am going to help them get their business off the ground, then where's mine? Jeff -- "...and the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire." -Joe Zeff in the SDM.
|