Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
ox <andre@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
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:31:49 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
ox <andre@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.)
They can, and they do. an example from two emails ago: http://www.pcworld.com/article/174651/article.html Where you also said:
Thanks LOTS Suresh! I didn't know anthing about this till now, but
this 2) In practice, in those rare instances when law enforcement stupidly injects itself into civil contractual disputes, claiming that
Okay, I think you said it best yourself, no need for me to say anything anyone can simply read what you have said.
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
Thank you, but you have managed to type a lot but clear up and/or add and/or answer nothing. You have also chosen, conveniently, for an unknown reason, to ignore the previous posts which deal with exactly the same issue. Andre
Brilliant. Thank you emphasizing this very simple point that others on the list pretend to behave as if they don't understand it. On 08/17/16 13:31, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
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.
-- Kind regards, CTO at *Foton Telecom CJSC* Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator <https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861> http://ipv6actnow.org/ <%0Ahttp://ipv6actnow.org/>
participants (3)
-
ox
-
Ronald F. Guilmette
-
Sergey