ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:31:49 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
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
No. I really can't fathom how you managed to so throughly mis-read that article. You need to go back and read your own reference again. Read the PCWorld article. This time try to comprehend what it actually says. Note that when I said "law enforcement *can't* deal with these things" the specific "things" I was referring to were simple deceptions, perpetrated upon RIPE by various parties in order to obtain number resources. As the PCWorld article makes abundantly clear the police were *already* looking into the various *other* criminal activities of the Russian Business Network, well before there was any interaction between law enforcement and RIPE. And further, by the time that there *was* some interaction between law enforcement and RIPE, it *did not* occur because RIPE had called the police to say "Oh help us! These evil RBN people have tricked us!" Rather, in this case, it was entirely the other way around: Law enforcement came to RIPE to tell RIPE that RIPE was, in effect, guilty of money laundering. That, of course, is yet another example of the generallized "Aaron Swartz principal" which states that *in general* when law enforcement becomes involved in any "cybercrime" matter which *does not* involve some really straightforward crookedness (i.e. a large sum of money being effectively or actually stolen) they routinely screw it up, go overboard, and start blaming all the wrong people. Regards, rfg
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:14:49 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:31:49 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
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 No. I really can't fathom how you managed to so throughly mis-read that
ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote: article.
When one reads anything of a few hundred words it is easy to find contradictions, different interpretations and to find what you are looking for, in order to prove almost anything :) It is my choice not to be judging investigative abilities from an article, or drawing conclusions of competence from an article. The simple salient facts however are probably as I said they were: Law enforcement can and do deal/investigate Internet crime; they have at least some resources and technical competence as they did in fact "find" RIPE etc etc... Nothing more, nothing less. =================== Definition of abuse: =================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All points seem resolved, except (3) (3) causing damage to others ( Dave Crocker - "and to actions that inflict damage on others" ) ( Michele Neylon - I like the idea of “damage” or “harm” on others The “infringe on usage .. “ thing didn’t seem very clear to me and I don’t see how that would apply to spam etc) (Andre - damage is a result of an action or result of abuse? crime?) Reading the definition again, the word 'infringe' means: act so as to limit or undermine (something); So damage is implied? The same with spam - When you tie up my network, servers, etc with rubbish emails you are also "infringing" on my use of my resources So, If you do not agree with the final definition, please contribute? Andre
participants (2)
-
ox -
Ronald F. Guilmette