[120692] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RBN and it's spin-offs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricardo Tavares)
Wed Dec 30 23:19:20 2009
In-Reply-To: <47c4bafa707aaa4f8d501f034c2abaf7@mail.dessus.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:16:29 -0200
From: Ricardo Tavares <curupas@gmail.com>
To: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hey, I am not sure if this is the question asked in the first email.
If I found a RBN fishing site, and ask RBN to shutdown the site, appears to
me that this will not be done...so I need to block all the RBN cyber space=
,
or initiate a fight for a warrant?
I would prefer just block RBN sites...
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Reportedly started by someone operating under the name
> >>> "Flyman," RBN is known as the mother of cybercrime among
> >>> online investigators. Fran=E7ois Paget, senior expert for
> >>> the McAfee company, says that RBN began as an Internet
> >>> provider and offered "impenetrable" hosting for $600 a
> >>> month. This meant a guarantee that it would not give
> >>> out information about its clients, no matter what
> >>> business they were in.
>
> >> This is a commendable position and one that should be the
> >> default for all businesses. Severe penalties (such as cutting
> >> out of the tongue or cutting off hands) should be dealt to
> >> anyone who releases private information without having first
> >> ensured that such disclosure is in accordance with a properly
> >> obtained court order issued by a competent court in a public
> >> hearing (and no, administrative tribunals are not courts of law).
>
> > Wow. I always knew there existed some alternate universe where the
> > RBN were actually the good guys. Didn't expect to find it so fast,
> > and on nanog at that.
>
> Wasn't it Larry Flynt that said: "Because if its good enough to
> protect a scumbag like me its sure darn good enough to protect
> all of you".
>
> Without a warrant, there is an absolute right to privacy.
> It continues to exist right up until either (a) one party chooses
> to give up that privacy or (b) a third party arrives with a Court
> Order. This is simply a covenant between two parties to preserve
> that "private" state unless lawfully compelled by lawful process
> otherwise. In other words, a covenant to adhere to the rule of
> law and the courts in the event of any dispute between the parties
> or any third party. It sure seems like a good thing to me -- and a
> covenant I would hope anyone I do business adheres to.
>
> --
> () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
> /\ www.asciiribbon.org
>
>
>
>
>
