-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
From: ox <
andre@ox.co.za>
Date: Tue, August 22, 2017 3:21 pm
To:
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Hi All,
I would like to propose a serious (and possibly long) conversation
about policing abuse. In depth, as it relates to DDOS, AS jacking, pump
n dump and everything Internet abuse.
Questions posed by Matthew Prince,
http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295 "Prince wants to spark a conversation about how tech should respond to
abhorrent content, and whether content should be policed by registrars,
browsers, or social networks"
This is relevant to all of us, as well as RIPE (all registries) and
anyone involved in Internet Abuse as it is far reaching.
the NY Times wrote about how social media platforms (including
multinationals like Google) are businesses and quoted Kendra Admas:
"legal talismans"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/magazine/how-hate-groups-forced-online-platforms-to-reveal-their-true-nature.html My initial comment is that I support what Ronald said
(Educate/Education) - To be clear, I am against registrars deciding
do de-register domains based on domain content or politics, I am
against hosting companies policing content (this is a job for law
enforcement) and as the USA seems to be changing.
(Corporations are becoming more fascist - Google deciding what may be
searched (no user options) Registrars deciding what random domain
names may publish on websites, Hosting companies (even here in EU)
deciding what
example.com may say on a website.
We are obviously at or close to a tipping point.
It does not help that many important tech companies are mostly all
based/operated from the USA and that these tech companies are now
exposed as powerful policing authorities - who will enforce (or try to
enforce) their opinions/mono culture/pseudo laws on the planet.
For example: There was a disagreement with Google recently. - this
disagreement was not related to politics, social discourse or anything
of even much importance. It was a disagreement on the interpretation of
a double blind clinical trial (posted on Eureka Alert) - Google has
decided to devalue (and even remove) search results based on whether
Google thinks it "agrees" with an opinion or not. I have also had
disagreements with Google. It is simply an impossible battle as Google
staff themselves are not "free" to express themselves - and if a
certain policy team says "xyz" then "xyz" it is and basta! The google
staffers that agree with you have no authority (and will never even
think of) over the "policy team" - so, these 'policy teams" in various
multi nationals are shaping the planet in their image and we are all
just along for the ride?
It is my argument that this type of behavior is in fact also Internet
Abuse. - The Internet is all about inter operation, co operation and if
something is not legal, why not have laws and law enforcement deal with
it?
All societies have laws, we all have real Police. Why should companies
be deciding what is legal and what is not?
Our Police and our Laws have become something secondary to these global
companies. Countries like China has clearly refused this acceptance and
I think it is time that many other countries also stand up and simply say "no".
Andre