[6632] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Policies affecting the Internet as a whole - Hitting where it hurts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris A. Icide)
Fri Dec 27 18:57:36 1996
From: "Chris A. Icide" <chris@nap.net>
To: "'Alan Hannan'" <alan@mindvision.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu"
<nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:47:12 -0600
There is a Gent in DC by the name of Thom Swink. He is with the Computer
Crime Squad of the FBI, and is a member of the Internet group. He seems
very knowledgeable as is many of his peers. Their phone number there is
212-384-1000 and his extension is X4505. This would definitely be a good
place to start. We've been here quite a few times with more acceptable
results than non.
Chris
----------
From: Alan Hannan[SMTP:alan@mindvision.com]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 1996 10:12 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Policies affecting the Internet as a whole - Hitting where it hurts
Hi.
I wrote:
] > Did you contact a law enforcement agency? Did we comply with
] > their wishes?
] > It seems that you are asking for vigilantism, not cooperation.
Kim wrote:
] What sort of law enforcement agency would contact uunet ?
] How about my local township police department ?
Whatever law enforement agency has jurisdiction. If the attacked
server is within their jurisdiction, that would be a good place to
start. Potentially you will have to escalate this to the FBI, as
they seem to be pretty savvy to computer crimes, on a relative
scale.
Law enforcement agencies _do_ contact providers, and do catch
folk. Read any popular book about shimomura and mitnick to see
an instance. (legal tramplings not withstanding)
I make no bones about this being a difficult problem, and I don't
mean to infer that Mr Hawn was attacking UUNET or advocating that
an ISP "retaliate". I apologize that this came across this way.
However, the more general theme seems to infer that providers of
service should maintain some level of responsibility for what
their users do.
This scares me, in the "real world".
-alan
