[51749] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Israel)
Thu Sep 5 18:53:49 2002
From: Dave Israel <davei@algx.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:53:15 -0400
To: Al Rowland <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net>
Cc: davei@algx.net, alex@yuriev.com, sgorman1@gmu.edu,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: RE: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection (Al Rowland)
Reply-To: davei@algx.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
My explanation accounts for suicide bombers in the statement: "Even
terrorist that will die to kill will probably not die to
inconvenience." This does not presume a western value system, either,
as somebody suggested. Many a terrorist will gladly give their lives
to destroy a hated enemy, or to terrify them, or to change their way
of life. I cannot believe, however, that there are people who will
give their lives to increase the download times for porn for a few
days.
-Dave
On 9/5/2002 at 13:49:29 -0700, Al Rowland said:
> To reinforce a dissenting opinion, And your explanation accounts for
> suicide bombers how? I would think a smoking hole in the ground
> containing a train or whatever, particularly if lose of life is
> involved, would be much more appealing to the motivations of most
> terrorists than a couple of computers with blue screens of death. I
> would think 9-11 would provide a compelling example of current terror=
ist
> practice.
>=20
> Just my 2=A2
>=20
> Best regards,
> _________________________
> Alan Rowland
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf =
Of
> Dave Israel
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: alex@yuriev.com
> Cc: Dave Israel; sgorman1@gmu.edu; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 9/5/2002 at 16:01:02 -0400, alex@yuriev.com said:
> > >=20
> > > The thing is, the major cuts are not "attacks;" the backhoe=20
> > > operators aren't gunning for our fiber (no matter how much it see=
ms=20
> > > like they are). If I wanted to disrupt traffic, intentionally an=
d=20
> > > maliciously, I would not derail a train into a fiber path. Doing=
so
>=20
> > > would be very difficult, and the legal ramifications (murder,=20
> > > destruction of property, etc, etc) are quite clear and severe. =20=
> > > However, if I ping-bomb you from a thousand "0wn3d" PCs on cable=20=
> > > modems, I never had to leave my parents' basement, I'm harder to=20=
> > > trace by normal police methods, and the question of which laws th=
at=20
> > > can be applied to me is less clear.
> >=20
> > This fails to address how this affects someone who has no problem w=
ith
>=20
> > legal ramfications - i.e. a terrorist.
>=20
> Even a terrorist will tend towards things that allow him to continue =
to
> be a terrorist. If I can do X amount of damage, and get caught, or d=
o X
> amount of damage, and not get caught, then he'll do the second. Even =
a
> terrorist that will die to kill will probably not die to inconvenienc=
e.
>=20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Dave Israel
Senior Manager, DNE SE
