[165521] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Stites)
Fri Sep 6 17:44:01 2013
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Stites <ncnet@sbcglobal.net>
To: "sam@circlenet.us" <sam@circlenet.us>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <6f6579b06623c318cfe2e415c57b0771@www.circlenet.us>
Reply-To: Larry Stites <ncnet@sbcglobal.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
"Just following orders..."=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From=
: Sam Moats <sam@circlenet.us>=0ATo: nanog@nanog.org =0ASent: Friday, Septe=
mber 6, 2013 7:30 AM=0ASubject: RE: The US government has betrayed the Inte=
rnet. We need to take it back=0A =0A=0A+1 I couldn't have said it any bette=
r.=0ASam=0A=0AOn 2013-09-06 10:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:=0A> The error in t=
his whole conversation is that you cannot "take it=0A> back" as an engineer=
.=A0 You do not own it.=A0 You are like an architect=0A> or carpenter and a=
re no more responsible for how it is used than the=0A> architect is respons=
ible that the building he designed is being used=0A> as a crack house.=A0 D=
o Ford engineers have a "social contract" to=0A> ensure that I do not run o=
ver squirrels with my Explorer, will they=0A> "take it back" if I do so?=A0=
The whole "social contract" argument is=0A> ridiculous.=A0 You have a cont=
ract (or most likely an "at will"=0A> agreement") with your employer to bui=
ld what they want and operate it=0A> in the way that they want you to.=A0 I=
f it is against your ethics to do=0A> so, quit.=A0 The companies that own t=
he network have a fiduciary=0A> responsibility to their investors and a res=
ponsibility to serve their=0A> customers.=A0 If anyone is really that bent =
out of shape by the NSA=0A> tactics (and I am not so sure they are given th=
e lack of political=0A> backlash) here is what you can do.=0A> =0A> In the =
United States there are two main centers of power that can=0A> affect these=
policies, the consumer and the voter.=0A> =0A> 1.=A0 We vote in a new exec=
utive branch every four years.=A0 They control=0A> and appoint the NSA dire=
ctor.=A0 Vote them out if you don't like how=0A> they run things.=A0 Do you=
think a President wants to maintain power?=0A> Of course they do and they =
will change a policy that will get them=0A> tossed out (if enough people ac=
tually care).=0A> =0A> 2.=A0 The Congress passes the laws that govern telec=
om and intelligence=0A> gathering.=A0 They also have the power to impeach a=
nd/or prosecute the=0A> executive branch for misdeeds.=A0 They will pass an=
y law or do whatever=0A> it takes to keep themselves in power.=A0 Again thi=
s requires a lot of=0A> public pressure.=0A> =0A> 3.=A0 The companies that =
are consenting to monitoring (legal or=0A> illegal) are stuck between two p=
owers.=A0 The federal government's power=0A> to regulate them and the inves=
tors / consumers they serve.=A0 Apparently=0A> they are more scared of the =
government even though the consumer can=0A> put them out of business overni=
ght by simply not using their product=0A> any more.=A0 If everyone cancelle=
d their gmail accounts, stopped using=0A> Google search, and stopped paying=
for Google placement and ads, their=0A> stock would go to zero nearly over=
night.=A0 Again, no one seems to care=0A> about the issue enough to do this=
because I have seen no appreciable=0A> backlash against these companies.=
=0A> =0A> If a social contract exists at all in the United States, it would=
be=0A> to hold your government and the companies you do business with to y=
our=0A> ethical standards.=A0 Another things to remember is that the NSA=0A=
> engineers were probably acting under their "social contract" to defend=0A=
> the United States from whatever enemies they are trying to monitor and=0A=
> also felt they were doing the "right thing".=A0 The problem with "social=
=0A> contracts" is that they are relative.=0A> =0A> As far as other countri=
es are concerned, you can affect their=0A> policies as well.=A0 US carriers=
are peered with and provide transit to=0A> Chinese companies.=A0 If the wh=
ole world is that outraged with what they=0A> do, they just need to pressur=
e the companies they do business with not=0A> to do business with China.=0A=
> =0A> Steven Naslund=0A> Chicago IL=0A> =0A> -----Original Message-----=0A=
> From: Jorge Amodio [mailto:jmamodio@gmail.com]=0A> Sent: Friday, Septembe=
r 06, 2013 8:51 AM=0A> To: NANOG=0A> Subject: Re: The US government has bet=
rayed the Internet. We need to=0A> take it back=0A> =0A>> > The US governme=
nt has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back=0A> =0A>> > >=0A>> >=
=0A>> > Who is we ?=0A>> =0A>> If you bothered to read the 1st paragraph yo=
u would know.=0A>> =0A> =0A> I read all of it, the original article and oth=
er references to it.=0A> =0A> IMHO, there is no amount of engineering that =
can fix stupid people=0A> doing stupid things on both sides of the stupid l=
ines.=0A> =0A> By trying to fix what is perceived an engineering issue (see=
ms that=0A> China doing the same or worse for many years wasn't an engineer=
ing=0A> problem) the only result you will obtain is a budget increase on th=
e=0A> counter-engineering efforts, that may represent a big chunk of money=
=0A> that can be used in more effective ways where it is really needed.=0A>=
=0A> My .02=0A> -J
