[186608] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: de-peering for security sake
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Dec 25 12:23:54 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <152665494.5477.1451053216146.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:22:43 -0800
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Dec 25, 2015, at 06:18 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> To the thread, not necessarily Daniel, if blocking =
countries\continents is a bad thing (not saying I disagree), how do you =
deal with the flood of trash? Just take it on the chin?=20
Allowing hate speech is the price of having free speech. I will decry, =
denounce, and object to all of the statements promoting racism or =
banning entry of people based on religion, or other forms of =
discrimination, but I will not claim that any person has no right to =
make those statements. In fact, I will strongly defend the right of =
those people to make fools of themselves in public every bit as strongly =
as I will defend my right to make opposing statements. Unless we =
tolerate unpopular speech, we risk a tyranny of the majority which is =
both detrimental to society overall and antithetical to freedom of =
speech, the principles of democracy, and the entire concept of a free =
society.
To some extent, some of the trash we take on the chin on the internet is =
the price of having a free and open internet.
I=E2=80=99m not opposed to localized depeering or blockage when =
warranted, but it is important to keep such actions as granular as =
practicable. Otherwise, the collateral damage to the free and open =
internet becomes greater than the damage done by the miscreants we are =
attempting to block.
Surely blocking an entire nation is well beyond =E2=80=9Cas granular as =
practicable=E2=80=9D.
I realize that reactionary overreach has become fashionable in the US =
since 9/11. Some great examples include the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, =
warrantless wiretapping and the associated unconstitutional laws of ex =
post facto granting retroactive immunity to the phone companies that =
lacked the will to say no. Examples abound even today in the =
surveillance bill that got buried in the recent budget act.
> The degree of splash damage by blocking this way will vary based upon =
what kind of network you are. Residential eyeballs? You could probably =
block most of a lot of things and people wouldn't notice or care, as =
long as it wasn't Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.=20
That may be true, but even if it is, it still doesn=E2=80=99t make broad =
censorship a concept we should support or accept in practice.
The extent to which it is true reminds me of the story (apocryphal as it =
is) of the frog in a pot of water with the temperature being raised =
slowly.
Merely because people are asleep at the switch does not give those of us =
in a position to understand the consequences license to abuse our =
position.
Owen
