[107635] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gadi Evron)
Mon Sep 8 14:51:58 2008
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:51:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <63ac96a50809081125u5d053021i5df7e822084283c7@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: InterCage - Russ <russ@intercage.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On 9/8/08, Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, InterCage - Russ wrote:
>> Thank you Russ. That is a great step in the right direction dropping this
>> one client. It is appreciated, although it's just one bad apple on a big
>> tree.
>>
>> However, I don't want to pick on you, so let's reframe the subject:
>>
>>> What do you suggest for the next move?
>>>
>>
>> Well, perhaps you can share any information with us on a legitimate client
>> you have?
>
> I do not think it is appropriate for ISPs to have to prove or demonstrate the
> legitimacy of their customer base. As a legitimate customer of an ISP, I
> would be *highly* incensed if my privacy were to be violated simply to
> provide "proof" that the ISP had legitimate clients.
What you say in this email makes a lot of sense. Thanks for pointing that
out.
Not being a lawyer, I think this also makes sense legally (as far as
the Britain-like systems go).
As to this particular case, I'd be satisfied if I see even just all the
fake DNS traffic stop heading their way, anyway.
Gadi.
> The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" I think is a much better model for
> us to work with. If you find clear miscreants, and have data to back it up,
> then a call for cleaning up the miscreants is somewhat acceptable, though
> I worry that we may descend into a witch hunt if this is taken too far to the
> extreme. However, a call to "prove your innocence" is entirely uncalled for,
> and opens ISPs up to being caught on the horns of a very nasty dillemma;
> either to maintain their customer's privacy, and be labelled as an evil, nasty,
> non-cooperative provider that must therefore be guilty, by their very dint of
> failure to prove their innocence; or, reveal their law-abiding,
> legitimate client
> information, and and then quickly lose those clients when they realize their
> records are no longer considered private at that ISP.
>
> If you have proof of clients engaging in illegal practices, then it is
> appropriate
> to go after those clients. But leave the legitimate clients alone.
>
> *putting down his pitchfork and torch, and walking away from the mob*
>
> Matt
>
