|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing these there will be some arrests. Now beyond that I don't know, but I am sure that being a co-conspirator to any number of illegal acts by facilitating them through what is set as the standard of "operational negligence", i.e. that what is generally expected of you, is still prosecutable. And when the first round of Network Admin's go to jail for being complicit in these frauds, the tunes regarding "hey you cant do this to us" will all vanish as your individual lawyers tell you to shut-up before contempt citations cost you more jail time. I wish this was different or that the general class of Admin's wasn't willing to fight this out - but after a few people wind up in jail, the general tune will change - I assure you. My one embedded comment in caps below "TSG -->" Todd Glassey -----Original Message----- From: Michael Loftis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:04 AM To: todd glassey; Robert A. Hayden; [email protected] Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True Yah but that's all akin to asking hte telephone company to make a log of each and every phone conversation above and beyond billing records. Unless you get billed per-piece of e-mail, or per HTTP connection an ISP should have to nor need ot keep a log of that data and be legally compelled to divulge any of that. TSG --> EXCEPT THAT THEY BECOME A PARTNER TO THE DECEPTION BY THEIR FACILITIES CONTINUING TO FACILITATE THE FRAUD. LOOK - IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT - BUT IT IS WHAT'S COMING - SO DO YOU WANT TO BE READY FOR IT OR SLAMMED BY IT? TAKE YOUR PICK. TSG --> THE WORST PART IS IF SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SENDS THIS ILLEGAL DATA GRAM TO YOU AND YOU FORWARD IT, YOU TECHNICALLY BECOME A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS "INTERSTATE FRAUD BY WIRE" AND THAT BRINGS THE FBI INTO IT POST HASTE. Just my $.02 TSG --> JUST MY $2. TSG --> Todd --On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:50 AM -0800 todd glassey <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about this - The issue is really one of the commission > of fraud and preventing it. So is NAT really an issue? I > think not. I think it may be part of the legislation but > that is because that the writers didn't have our input... > > So if you as an ISP have a good operating process model and > you log and sort your log data. What is the difference > between a log that shows a bunch of stuff moving to a DHCP > lease that was assigned to "xxx-yyyy" at "zz:zz" time on > "dd-mm-yyyy" day. And that this lease was issued to account > "blah" - then you have the most evidence that is available > over a TCP connection anyway. And its as good as the > testimony of the logs regarding that there was only one > address at the end of that pipe serviced. > > What I am saying is that any legislation preventing NAT is > ludicrous and in fact counter productive. What it needs to > be is legislation regarding how well ISP's have to audit > what their customers do. That's it. Nothing more. > > Look - what is the difference between the log data shown in > a scenario where I don't use NAT but instead use Microsoft's > Internet Sharing Feature in the Win2000 Servers? the answer > is simple. Poof NAT gateway. And so now it is illegal to use > a facility already distributed in every copy of MS Server > deployed in these states.... > > Look what this law-shtick is all about is the mandating that > ISP's know what their customers are doing data wise, on > their wires (the ISP's) and that's it. > > Todd Glassey > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > Behalf Of > Robert A. Hayden > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security > device as well? > Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security > breaches on my home > network because they banned my firewall? From a > political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs > that are > complaining about NAT as being soft on security and > encouraging hacking. > In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be > some milage > here. > > I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been > very open about > people using NAT devices to the point that they are > recommended in some > cases as security devices as well as being sold by Charter's > professional-services group as inexpensive firewalls. About > six months > ago I got a 1-page flier from Charter offering a 4-port > Linksys and an > on-site installation. > > Since a "NAT device" could include virtually any operating > system and any > PC with two or more ethernet ports, it might be better to > push the > "firewall" aspects of them rather than try to defend or > justify the > MANY-to-1 routing aspects of NAT. > >
|