[115059] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wayne E. Bouchard)
Fri Jun 5 03:03:03 2009
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:02:12 -0700
From: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <web@typo.org>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
In-Reply-To: <D338D1613B32624285BB321A5CF3DB250CCD12A228@ginga.ai.net>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:44:53AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off?
>
> The AUP standard is usually written much, much lower.
>
> Deepak
It says revenue trumps ethics in far too many instances. Virtually
every company out there, regardless of size, has their share of those
that some would rather do without but who stick around often because
someone with authority is willing to look the other way. Why does this
happen? Money. Simple as that. If they're willing to buy, someone is
willing to sell.
To put any real teeth behind the concept of an AUP and those that are
supposedly charged with enforcing these, in a lot of firms, will take
some sort of landmark criminal or civil case that effectively says,
"You knew about these complaints and chose to ignore them, therefore
you are complicit in what they did. Now fork over." It is unfortunate
that this is probably going to be necessary, but thats the way I see
things. Until companies are scared of the repercussions of weak or
unenforced AUPs, this situation will not change.
-Wayne
---
Wayne Bouchard
web@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/
