Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
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@ox.co.za> пишет:
ox <andre@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
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:11:44 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote: 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.
There was this little kerfuffle some years back http://www.pcworld.com/article/174651/article.html --srs
On 17-Aug-2016, at 2:00 PM, Sergey <gforgx@fotontel.ru> wrote:
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@ox.co.za> пишет:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:11:44 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
ox <andre@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.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:07:13 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
There was this little kerfuffle some years back http://www.pcworld.com/article/174651/article.html
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. As not doing this is specifically enabling the/that/any crime where that resource is used in the commission of such a crime. Not doing this is extremely irresponsible and, further reasoning is that RIPE may as well open up the database so that anyone from the web can update resource records, as the database means nothing. RIPE not reporting such fraud to the authorities is many things... Andre
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
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:56:05 +0100 Rob Evans <rhe@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
Hello Rob, Okay, thank you I stand corrected! :) Please accept the singular word change from "charges" to read "complaint" Andre
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. --srs On 17-Aug-2016, at 2:26 PM, Rob Evans <rhe@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
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:38:09 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@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@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
In message <ADC89954-A8EE-4304-B4BC-74B12E74C58D@gmail.com>, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
There was this little kerfuffle some years back
Thanks LOTS Suresh! I didn't know anthing about this till now, but this write-up is absolutely the funniest thing I've read all year so far, although the parts I think are hilarious are probably not the same ones that other people think are hilarious. Examples: RIPE contends it was duped and that at the time, it was impossible to tell that the front company wasn't legitimate. What's the expression? "Either lead, follow, or get out of the f***ing way." If RIPE NCC is unable to tell if a company is real or not, perhaps they should farm out this part of their duties to a more experienced third- party subcontractor. (I'm available. :-) That essentially made RIPE part of a money laundering operation... And here we are, 7 years later, and this has changed how, exactly? RIPE does take measure to vet new applicants, but in the case of RBN, "it's quite difficult to find those people if they are hidden behind those shell companies and fake fronts," For some reason this reminds me of those child psychology experiments where researchers try to figure out at what age, on average, children begin to grasp the fact that when a ball is moved so that it is behind a visual barrier, it doesn't actually and physically disappear forever. Regards, rfg
Oh, that's where the "we are not the document police" refrain comes in very useful as an expression of support. --srs
On 17-Aug-2016, at 4:16 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
In message <ADC89954-A8EE-4304-B4BC-74B12E74C58D@gmail.com>, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
There was this little kerfuffle some years back
Thanks LOTS Suresh! I didn't know anthing about this till now, but this write-up is absolutely the funniest thing I've read all year so far, although the parts I think are hilarious are probably not the same ones that other people think are hilarious. Examples:
RIPE contends it was duped and that at the time, it was impossible to tell that the front company wasn't legitimate.
What's the expression? "Either lead, follow, or get out of the f***ing way."
If RIPE NCC is unable to tell if a company is real or not, perhaps they should farm out this part of their duties to a more experienced third- party subcontractor. (I'm available. :-)
That essentially made RIPE part of a money laundering operation...
And here we are, 7 years later, and this has changed how, exactly?
RIPE does take measure to vet new applicants, but in the case of RBN, "it's quite difficult to find those people if they are hidden behind those shell companies and fake fronts,"
For some reason this reminds me of those child psychology experiments where researchers try to figure out at what age, on average, children begin to grasp the fact that when a ball is moved so that it is behind a visual barrier, it doesn't actually and physically disappear forever.
Regards, rfg
participants (5)
-
ox -
Rob Evans -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Sergey -
Suresh Ramasubramanian