|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 10:02:26PM -0400, [email protected] said: [snip] > > > Such technology is very dangerous if automated. > > > > And if its not? > > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > > Such technology is very dangerous, period. Here they go again, trying > to elevate some Internet masterrace of super heroes, bent on ruling > over the masses. The titans of blackholing, carving out a fiefdom for > themselves, with powers of disrupting the connectivity of any network > they so chose. You anger some net.warlord, and your network disappears. No. You attack or spam some other network, and said network's operator can take action as appropriate to that network. Such action may include that network refusing to accept future traffic from the offending network until the problem is resolved. I don't see how this rates as 'ruling over the masses' - it becomes, as it always has been, individual network operators deciding how best to run their networks, as they see fit. My decisions apply to my network, and nobody else's. Or are you saying that network operators should not be trusted to run their networks as they see fit? Who then makes the rules? > What is it that turns a technocracy into idolaters? What is it that turns the decision of an individual network operator into a rant about political ideology? -- Scott Francis [email protected] [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t Systems/Network Manager [email protected] [work:] t o n o s . c o m GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui Attachment:
pgp00039.pgp
|