RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT
CleanIT (www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet.pdf ) seems to me to be a useful report asking governments to facilitate awareness and fund "referral units", and "Internet Companies" to provide reasonable end-user feedback mechanisms on suspected Terrorist Internet use. - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue. Regards Steve Nash Steve.nash@theiet.org -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: 31 January 2013 12:34 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CleanIT Update Brian, I am sure many people on the coop wg is interested in this work, so thank you for copying the mailing list. Patrik Fältström Co-chair cooperation working group On 31 jan 2013, at 12:55, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Colleagues,
(And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.)
You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/
This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here:
http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/
It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities.
If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know.
Brian
Steve, I strongly believe we do not need a new WG to address this. You are correct that this matter doesn't strictly fit into the AA-WG Charter, it's more an accident of timing that brought us together. Nobody has raised an objection before now, but if the community would prefer this to be dealt with by another WG, we can easily work on that. I would also point out that both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC have clearly demonstrated their interest in this process and project. We have been active participants since the beginning of the project and both Tobias and I were at the meeting in Brussels, as were Athina Fragkouli and Andrew de la Haye from the RIPE NCC. There is no question that the people involved in this project would involve both the NCC and the community in any future work. I'm not sure what kind of response you had in mind? Brian Nash, Steve wrote the following on 01/02/2013 10:51:
CleanIT (www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet.pdf ) seems to me to be a useful report asking governments to facilitate awareness and fund "referral units", and "Internet Companies" to provide reasonable end-user feedback mechanisms on suspected Terrorist Internet use.
- Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow.
Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG?
I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue.
Regards Steve Nash Steve.nash@theiet.org
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: 31 January 2013 12:34 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CleanIT Update
Brian,
I am sure many people on the coop wg is interested in this work, so thank you for copying the mailing list.
Patrik Fältström Co-chair cooperation working group
On 31 jan 2013, at 12:55, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Colleagues,
(And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.)
You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/
This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here:
http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/
It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities.
If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know.
Brian
On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:51, "Nash, Steve" <snash@arbor.net> wrote:
- Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow.
It's almost impossible to come up with a consensus definition of terrorism for just one country, let alone across the RIPE service region. Consensus on a region-wide definition of illegal content seems unlikely too. So I suggest we don't go down those rat-holes. Instead we should engage with law enforcement and governments to reach a common understanding on what practical steps can be taken or are being taken, discuss the legal/technical issues, develop processes for exchanging information, doing liaison and outreach, etc. IIUC this is already happening.
Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG?
No. IMO the current arrangements seem to be fine. IIUC NCC staff and representatives of relevant WGs are already involved in this project and engage more generally with governments and law enforcement on things like crime prevention and counterterrorism. If the existing arrangements are not working, we first need to find out why before deciding how to fix the problem(s). Creating a new WG or a Task Force (say) seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Even more so when it's not clear what's broken or needs to be fixed. Do you have any insight that the community's current activities in this area are unsatisfactory? Can you explain how a new WG or whatever would improve matters?
I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue.
RIPE and the NCC are already engaged AFAICT.
On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:51, "Nash, Steve" <snash@arbor.net> wrote:
- Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow.
It's almost impossible to come up with a consensus definition of terrorism for just one country, let alone across the RIPE service region. Consensus on a region-wide definition of illegal content seems unlikely too. So I suggest we don't go down those rat-holes. Instead we should engage with law enforcement and governments to reach a common understanding on what practical steps can be taken or are being taken, discuss the legal/technical issues, develop processes for exchanging information, doing liaison and outreach, etc. IIUC this is already happening.
Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG?
No. IMO the current arrangements seem to be fine. IIUC NCC staff and representatives of relevant WGs are already involved in this project and engage more generally with governments and law enforcement on things like crime prevention and counterterrorism. If the existing arrangements are not working, we first need to find out why before deciding how to fix the problem(s). Creating a new WG or a Task Force (say) seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Even more so when it's not clear what's broken or needs to be fixed.
Do you have any insight that the community's current activities in this area are unsatisfactory? Can you explain how a new WG or whatever would improve matters?
I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue.
RIPE and the NCC are already engaged AFAICT.
So IETF is (thus internet) is above the «wire» and below the application. RIPE is a (big) RIR is delivering IP/AS: it is clearly in the realm described earlier and in the RIR policy stuff. Terrorism is an highly politicial content and behaviour based definition, it is way up the level of application. So it seems to me it is clearly not relevant to treat terrorism threat at
2013/2/1 Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> the media level. Should the media be aware of the content? Yes, if like louis XIV you want to create patent for editing in order to censor the ideas. The printing was not responsible for the fall of monarchy, it was the ideas. You don't fight ideas by fighting the media that carries them. You fight them with education. For the record France is not a monarchy anymore and «Colporteur» (alternative reseller of books printed in Holland) made the idea spread whatever the illusion of control the monarchy had. History repeats itself, you can try to control media to fight idea, but it is inefficient and counterproductive. Legit citizens that read the RIPE mailing list will at a moment or another blow the whistle regarding their concern of a techno censorship. I am disappointed by RIPE an organisation based in the country that so dearly protected the spread of ideas that were considered «terrorists» by the monarchy, and a major actor in the «Philosophie des Lumières» to side with the actual initiative for obscurantism.
participants (4)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Jim Reid -
julien tayon -
Nash, Steve