Hi Jordi,

your example seems a bit off though. If your contract is with your ISP and you need to complain to them, why would you complain to another ISP you have no contract with?

I agree that current GDPR implementations may impact the contactibility of the customer, but that can be improved in GDPR-compliant manners that do not require playing chinese whispers down the chain.

Not objecting to your 3. but you need to consider it may not be the contractual partner acting against the contract. They may be a victim as well, and therefore enforcing any actions against them may be unproductive. Would you shut down Google.com because of one link to a site violating third party rights?

Best,

Volker

Hi Volker,

 

I don’t agree with that, because:

1. I believe the electricity sample I provided proves otherwise. My contract is with the electricity provider (the Internet provider), so I need to complain to them and they need to follow the chain.
2. For a victim, to complain directly to the customer (not the operator), will need to know the data of the “abuser” which may be protected by GDPR.
3. Customers sign a contract with the operator. The contract must have clear conditions (AUP) about the appropriate use of the network. If you act against that contract, the problem is with the operator, not victims.

 

By the way, if an operator has a badly designed AUP, either they are doing a bad job, or they have *no interest* in acting against abuses.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 16/1/20 15:44, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Volker Greimann" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de vgreimann@key-systems.net> escribió:

 

Obviously every user should lock their doors / protect themselves against fraud. I am just saying that the ability of many service providers to curtail abuse of their system (without impacting legitimate uses) is very limited as it may not their customers doing the abusing and any targeted action against those customers themselvesd would be inappropriate and affect many legitimate users of their services.

At what point should a network service provider remove privileges from a customer that is himself being abused but is technically unable to deal with it properly? Would the complaint not be better directed at that customer, not the provider, since they are the ones that can resolve this issue in a more targetted and appropriate manner? How does the service provider differentiate between a customer that is abusing vs one that is being abused?  Deputising the service providers will not necessarily solve the problems, and possibly create many new ones.

In the domain industry, we were required to provide an abuse contact, however the reports we get to that address usually deal with issues we cannot do much about other than pulling or deactivating the domain name, which is usually the nuclear option. So we spend our time forwarding abuse mails to our customers that the complainant should have sent to the customer directly.

Best,

volker

 

Am 16.01.2020 um 15:16 schrieb Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg:

Hi Volker

On 16/01/2020 15:03, Volker Greimann wrote:

isn't making the world (and the internet) first and foremost a job of

law enforcement agencies like the police and Europol?

Law enforcement's job primarily is arresting criminals. And yes they do

prevention. But you can't stop locking your door or walk by fight just

ignoring it, because it's LEA's job.

This is even more true on the internet, where CERT's have long been

working together fighting cybercrime etc.

While there obviously is an appeal to the notion of "The best problems

are some one else's problem" my believe is we don't want to have an

internet or a world, for that matter, where this is how things run. The

internet is a bottom up thing, it is so cool because people follow

protocols, that are not law.

There was a time whn this wasn't a given: During the "Browser wars"

different producer leveraged ambiguities in the HTML standard, and the

end result was horrible.

We don't want this. If we delegate the problem, we've already lost.

Best

Serge

--
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH

T: +49 6894 9396901
M: +49 6894 9396851
F: +49 6894 9396851
W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.