- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by Ronald F. Guilmette 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >So, to be clear - I am not saying that I THINK ripe should file >criminal charges (THEY MUST) Well, OK, I did miscounstrue your comments, so for that I apologize. But for all the reasons I've already noted, RIPE NCC actually DO NOT do what you think "THEY MUST". They do not call in the police each time some clever forger flim-flams them. If you think you can change that, by all means, you're free to try. But for all the reasons I've already noted, I do not think that will change, nor do I think it should. I would really rather that law enforcement spend their limited time and resources chasing down terrorists, bank robbers, child molesters, child pornographers, and all such other scum-of-the-earth as deserve their special attention. Regards, rfg

2 1

Current Discussion & List Behaviour
by Brian Nisbet 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

Colleagues, I'm on holidays right now, so I haven't been reading the list discussion as assiduously as I otherwise might. However I have noticed that things haven't gotten, in places, less professional than we might otherwise wish. Can I remind you all to please remain civil and to assume good intent on the part of all participants. We are all passionate about this subject, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it in the best manner. My email reading will continue to be sporadic, at best, at least until next week and probably for another couple of weeks, so please bear this email in mind whenever you are putting finger to keyboard. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager, HEAnet

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by Ronald F. Guilmette 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >When anyone commits fraud to obtain a resource from RIPE, RIPE has the >responsibility to file criminal charges against that criminal. > >I am not saying that I think RIPE should file criminal charges... I would suggest that you consider running for President of the United States, but we've already got another guy in the race who routinely manages to contradict himself within the space of two consecutive sentences. Regards, rfg

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by Ronald F. Guilmette 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >> Yes, by all means, let's take a violation of contractual terms between >> two private parties and turn it into a law enforcement matter. And > >I am not sure what you mean, maybe you can explain it to me better? I'm not sure what it is that you're not sure about. I've made three simple points, none of which should really be all that difficult to understand. These three points are as follows: 1) In practice, law enforcement *can't* deal with these things. They don't have the resources or, in general, the technical competence to even understand them. (See link below.) 2) In practice, in those rare instances when law enforcement stupidly injects itself into civil contractual disputes, claiming that they have criminal jurisdiction, they usually do so in a ham-fisted way that does more harm than good. (See link below.) 3) Even RIPE NCC legal staff recognize that it would be the height of silly absurdity for them to call in the Dutch police, or Interpol whenever they get snookered by some clever Russian or Egyptian, which happens these days with disturbing regularity due to the fact that RIPE NCC never actually checks anybody's bona fides themselves until *after* some schmo like me raises a stink, by which time it's too late, the number resources have already been allocated, the overt criminality has already begun, and RIPE's own rules require a laborious, lengthy, tedious, and exceptionally time-consuming multi-month process just for them to be able to take back what they should never have handed out in the first place. In effect, RIPE NCC is walking around with a billboard-sized sign on its back saying "CHEAT ME!" and criminals from all over the world, eager to make an illegal buck, are only too happy to oblige them. The following two links support the first two points above: 1) http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36731694 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz Regarding point #3, I've suggested... although perhaps not clearly enough... that if you have trouble understanding it, you should do some simple research, i.e.: a) Ask RIPE NCC Legal yourself how many times they have taken a contract breach and gone to law enforcement and filed a criminal complaint on account of that. (Hint: Never.... because they are not stupid, and because they understand points #1 and #2 above.) b) Ask RIPE NCC Legal yourself how they were magically able to verify the bona fides of ORG-IL351-RIPE aka "Icenetworks Ltd." aka "OrangeWebsite.Com", even though there is simply is no way for _any_ mere mortal to verify either the existance of, or, conversely, the non-existance of _any_ Belize company, let alone verifying which human individuals are or are not empowered to enter into legally binding contracts on behalf of such a company. If they give you an answer to that last one, please do let me know. Whatever it is, it is quite likely to be either (a) facinating or (b) laughable, or perhaps (c) both facinating -and- laughable. Regards, rfg

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by Sergey 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

That's easy. The analogy is weak. Don't mess the Internet with real world things. The Internet has been self-regulated since its birth. Otherwise we'd have govts and not RIRs controlling the number resources. And I hear it all the time that it's specifically RIPE's problem of dealing with rogue sign-ups. 17 августа 2016 г. 11:24:44 GMT+03:00, ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> пишет: >On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:11:44 -0700 >"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com> wrote: >> ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> you wrote: >> >Are fake whois records abuse? I think this is an excellent question >> >and requires discussion. >> >Personally I think filing fake information to a resource is actually >> >a crime called fraud. I am sure that this is also a crime under >> >Dutch law and that the Dutch Law enforcement should investigate >this? >> >> Why yes! (Now why didn't *I* think of that?) >> Yes, by all means, let's take a violation of contractual terms >between >> two private parties and turn it into a law enforcement matter. And > >I am not sure what you mean, maybe you can explain it to me better? > >When one private person/organization steals another private >person/organization's car, it is not theft? > >When one private party lies, cheats and fraudulently obtains something >from another party, it is not fraud? > >Because why? > >Because they are "private parties" ? > >I am so sorry that I am slow in understanding this and than you so much >for taking the time to explain this to me > >Andre -- Простите за краткость, создано в K-9 Mail.

5 8

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

Yes that is what I said about a legal obligation versus good citizenship --srs > On 17-Aug-2016, at 2:46 PM, ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:38:09 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I think the term that's being collectively groped for is whether >> ripe ncc has a reporting obligation in case it discovers criminal >> activity >> >> The number of cases where such reporting is mandatory in law and not >> simply a matter of good citizenship is rather limited - threat to >> life, kidnap, etc. >> > No, not so much... > > It is not a "point of view" whether RIPE has the obligation to file > criminal complaints when there is fraud committed against RIPE > > Under Dutch Law, We have already heard how RIPE is registered... > > In fact, if it was a public company, it would not be much different either.. > > Speaking generally, in most places in the world where you are working > or operating the assets of someone other than yourself their are many > additional things that become relevant to your own operation... > > I think that we may want to hear from RIPE legal in that regard > > But, what I am also saying is that socially, civil society and simple > ethics and good custodial management, basic decency and so very very > many other things demand that RIPE files criminal complaints when there > is crime. > > For example: Should an official of RIPE steal money at RIPE there is an > obligation to file a criminal complaint. > > Same principles apply all throughout > > Andre > > > > >> --srs >> >> On 17-Aug-2016, at 2:26 PM, Rob Evans <rhe(a)nosc.ja.net> wrote: >> >>>> When anyone commits fraud to obtain a resource from RIPE, RIPE has >>>> the responsibility to file criminal charges against that criminal. >>>> >>>> I am not saying that I think RIPE should file criminal charges, I >>>> am saying that not doing so is in itself a questionable action. >>> >>> Well, to be pedantic, *criminal* charges are filed by the police >>> or other law-enforcment body, not by companies. :) >>> >>> Rob >>> > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by Ronald F. Guilmette 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> you wrote: >Are fake whois records abuse? I think this is an excellent question and >requires discussion. > >Personally I think filing fake information to a resource is actually a >crime called fraud. I am sure that this is also a crime under Dutch law >and that the Dutch Law enforcement should investigate this? Why yes! (Now why didn't *I* think of that?) Yes, by all means, let's take a violation of contractual terms between two private parties and turn it into a law enforcement matter. And while we're at it, let's have Interpol come out to your house and cuff you for those rental DVDs you returned 2 days late. Yes, that's obviously the best choice, and the best possible use of limited law enforcement resources. And look at how well it worked out in the Aaron Swartz case! So I'm sure your're right. But you shouldn't rely on just _my_ humble opinion. Why not ask the RIPE NCC legal team how many of those 7 cases of non-financial contract breaches in 2015 and 2016 they called in law enforcement on. I'm sure they'll tell you they did so in all 7 cases... ... or maybe not. >But, imho, fake whois records and/or incorrect whois records, is not >abuse. Yes. What the hell! Let's just turn off the RIPE WHOIS server and then everything will be so much simpler and straightforward. At least then we won't have to wonder anymore. Instead we will be SURE that none of us has the least clue who is actually using which IP ranges, or who takes responsibility for any of them. A rational choice, if ever there was one. Regards, rfg

2 1

82.221.130.64/26
by Ronald F. Guilmette 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

Additional information about security issues relating to the 82.221.130.64/26 IP address block: https://forum.eset.com/topic/2121-what-is-this-exactly/

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by ox 16 Aug '16

16 Aug '16

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:23:21 +0000 David Hilario <fransossen(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andre, > Thank you so much David That is a very complete, informed and direct answer I also do not foresee anything changing anytime soon, or that there is even a need for anything to change, for that matter. We do really need a definition of "abuse" though, as some actions may, or may not be abuse and/or crimes - and when there are general discussions about "abuse" it would be good to know the definition and/or parameters. It would be within the scope of an operational abuse list, to define what abuse is. So, we are still at this last definition: "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" Current discussions about what needs to be added still? (add if I am missing anyone or anything please) (1) Gert Doering suggested that "there are legal reason why someone could infringe on someon else's use rights" - added the 'non sanctioned' - seems fine now, Gert? (2) unauthorized access / hacking / and/or breaking in ( Dave Crocker - abuse concerns unauthorized access ) (Andre - breaking in is crime, abuse is use something for bad purpose ) (3) causing damage to others ( Dave Crocker - "and to actions that inflict damage on others" ) ( Michele Neylon - I like the idea of “damage” or “harm” on others The “infringe on usage .. “ thing didn’t seem very clear to me and I don’t see how that would apply to spam etc) (Andre - damage is a result of an action or result of abuse? crime?) > > >Maybe you can help, David? > > > >When RIPE investigates "abuse" what are they investigating? Crimes? > >Criminal activity? Fraud? or actual abuse? > > Short version: > RIPE NCC can only investigate and take actions against resource > holders based on RIPE policy violations and contractual agreement > violations. (With the exception of legal requirements such as court > orders enforceable under dutch law, embargo that apply to Dutch based > organisation, RIPE NCC functions under Dutch law and has to comply at > that level...but those things are outside of the scope of the RIPE > policies) > > Long version: > This is the document you are looking for: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-640 > > It lists the reasons for being under violations and the eventual > consequences (de-registration of resources, closure of LIR). > > Anything else is actually sort of irrelevant, unless a RIPE policy is > to be put in place against something that would be defined as > "abuse". This would be decided here within the WG and not by the RIPE > NCC. > > The RIPE NCC will then be able to enforce the policy that has been > decided here. > > I don't really foresee any of that changing anytime soon though. > But actions are taken, where actions can be taken by the RIPE NCC, > based on the current set of policies. > > Cheers, > David

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
by David Hilario 16 Aug '16

16 Aug '16

Hi Andre, >Maybe you can help, David? > >When RIPE investigates "abuse" what are they investigating? Crimes? >Criminal activity? Fraud? or actual abuse? Short version: RIPE NCC can only investigate and take actions against resource holders based on RIPE policy violations and contractual agreement violations. (With the exception of legal requirements such as court orders enforceable under dutch law, embargo that apply to Dutch based organisation, RIPE NCC functions under Dutch law and has to comply at that level...but those things are outside of the scope of the RIPE policies) Long version: This is the document you are looking for: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-640 It lists the reasons for being under violations and the eventual consequences (de-registration of resources, closure of LIR). Anything else is actually sort of irrelevant, unless a RIPE policy is to be put in place against something that would be defined as "abuse". This would be decided here within the WG and not by the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC will then be able to enforce the policy that has been decided here. I don't really foresee any of that changing anytime soon though. But actions are taken, where actions can be taken by the RIPE NCC, based on the current set of policies. Cheers, David

1 0