[107710] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Sep 11 18:38:04 2008
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <200809110850.25652.lowen@pari.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:37:59 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 11 September 2008 06:23:29 list-nanog@pwns.ms wrote:
>> This is not a court. In court, if you are determined guilty a large
>> punishment may be exacted
>
> Depeering is not a large punishment?
>
> In the internet world, mass depeering / de-transitting like we've
> see in this
> instance is akin to capital punishment. By vigilantes. The US Old
> West
> redux.
You are confused.
Connecting to my network is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You lose a
criminal case, you lose rights (e.g. freedom to walk outside).
Disconnecting you from my network is not denying any of your rights.
There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove
you are worthy to connect to my network. You don't want to prove it,
that's your right, just as it is my right to not connect to you.
Mind if I ask why you think you have any right to connect to my
network if I do not want you to do so? For _any_ reason, including
not showing me "legit" customers, political affiliation, or even the
color of your hat?
--
TTFN,
patrick
> But even in a court of law in a criminal case a defense must be made,
> otherwise the least sort of evidence of culpability can produce
> conviction;
> the defendant must at least put on a defense to invalidate the
> culpatory
> evidence. So when culpatory evidence is presented in these cases,
> requesting
> exculpatory evidence is very reasonable.
>
> Lack of a defense in a civil case will virtually guarantee a favorable
> judgment for the plaintiff, however.
>
