All,
>So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to
>a convicted criminal?
That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that
my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a convicted
criminal.
I would argue this analogy itself is
poor. The gun store is directly supporting the convicted criminal in
potentially committing further acts. The criminal in this instance has
(presumably, at least in the jurisdiction you are referencing) been
convicted through a given legal process. There is substantial risk of
abuse and little barrier to entry to purchasing firearms. You do not need a firearm to survive
in most regions today.
In summary: high risk of danger (given their
conviction), low potential benefit to allowing it, and low risk of causing
harm to the individual or entity you have denied.
In
the case of IP addresses and ASNs, the "convicted individual" has been,
under the current policy draft, convicted in the mind of one - perhaps
two upon appeal - experts (a term which has yet to be defined in
policy). Such an opinion, no matter how professional, is a very low bar
to be taking as objective. Having access to content online (which
inherently requires either your ISP or you to hold resources from the
NCC or another RIR) is significantly more necessary.
In summary: medium
(perhaps low, depending on the expert selection) risk of danger,
substantial potential benefit to allowing it, and high risk of causing harm
to the individual or entity you have denied.
Should RIPE be selling them more? Apparently, as of right now, there is no
rule in place to prevent this. And as I have already noted, the
company known as Universal IP Solution Corp. is still a member in
good standing of the RIPE association.
...
If you are arguing that that is in any sense justifiable, either
morally, ethically, or even legally, please say so explicitly.
Should the NCC be allocating them more addresses?
It is justified (morally, ethically,
and perhaps even legally) to continue treating all entities as equals by allocating resources for their use unless they have been determined to be a distinct threat by a trustworthy system, such as a board of peers (as in the case of a criminal conviction).
Keeping to my earlier discussion of the gun store analogy, I do not
believe that the opinion of a single expert (with the possibility of
appeal) is enough to determine their state. A multi-step process is needed in which an individual has many opportunities to prove their innocence. While I understand the goal of the policy in being expedient, I do not believe this process should be compromised in the name of expediency. A single appeal is not appropriate.
The
IP addresses they have are not directly aiding in hijacking. While
their ASN may be, they could just as simply hijack another ASN. If IP space was to be revoked, they could simply hijack more as well.
In my country, there is now at least one lawsuit, progressing through
the courts, against gun manufacturers for their supportive role in
some of our recent mass shootings. I hope that it does not take a
similar legal action against RIPE before RIPE adopts some rational
policies to prevent itself from being the handmadien of online
cyber-criminal enterprises and from then being reasonably and properly
held to legal account for this exact supportive role on ongoing
cyber-crime schemes
It is pointless to speculate about the outcome of such a legal proceeding before it has been decided.
>BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things
>which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions
>in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political
>leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions, political dissent, blasphemy
>and so on.
As I have already pointed out, this "slippery slope" argument is a
smokescreen, and only being used to justify the inexcusible status quo.
The proposal on the table doesn't deal with any matters which are in
any way even remotely tied to mere offenses against any local or
localize sensibilities. It doesn't even remotely have anything at
all to do with either (a) any actions or offenses in "meatspace" nor
(b) any actions or offenses having anything at all to do with -content-
in any sense. The present proposal only has to do with the outright
THEFT of IP addresses, i.e. the very commodity which RIPE is supposed to
the responsible shepard of.
Within your jurisdiction, I can think of several cases which show this to not be the case (ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc., et al. being one of them).
It would seem so, at least when the "slippery slope" arguments is
clearly being made in order to falsely try to scare people with the
bogeyman of "censorship". That is clearly not what the proposal is
about, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to go back to school
until he, she or it fully grasps the difference between content and
the IP addresses that provide the technical means to distribute it.
Blocking content distribution methods is effectively blocking the content itself. If your newspaper was unable to print and distribute their news because their electricity had been shut off (for anything outside of nonpayment), it would still be considered censorship.
Whst this *is* actually all about is just this: You steal IPs and
then you lose your IPs.
I've still yet to be convinced that this would substantially cut down on hijacking; additionally, I've yet to be convinced that such a policy would not sweep up innocents due to its allowance of reports by the general public and incredibly low bar for labeling someone a hijacker.
Jacob Slater