4 ms·

The first question is who decides what's illegal? Being gay is illegal in certain countries... Making ISPs more proactive is only doable with either heavy rest

The first question is who decides what's illegal? Being gay is illegal in certain countries... Making ISPs more proactive is only doable with either heavy restrictions what communication is allowed or heuristics (that fail). That sounds like anyone out of the ordinary (so a majority of this site's users) will get flagged as suspicious. The fun thing is that I've seen both methods already applied and either me or someone I know has been encumbered by them. There's not a single piece of me that feels that this would somehow end up positive in total.

oliwarner 8y ago
I think it would have to be a single multi-signatory convention. And part of that stipulates that you can only peer against networks in signatory nations. The process of deciding that sort of law would be awful but if everybody focussed on serious and network focussed crime and not protecting Mickey Mouse et al, something good could come from it. But you are probably right. The US —esp with current leadership— could very easily force protectionist terms on others. Nobody would want to be separated from the US. Switzerland would have no leverage. African countries would have no leverage. The EU and China might have a chance, but the latter especially stands to lose a lot more than it could gain. China still needs access to a global market. It's definitely has potential to be deeply insidious. But with the value of the network, I'm just surprised people aren't suggesting more things like this. To be clear, I'm not advocating this. I just see it as an inevitability.
oliwarner 8y ago
On the point of ISP pro-activeness, I really just mean that —without a warrant or other court order (or national security edict)— they currently do somewhere between zilch and nothing with abuse emails. And everybody on the Internet knows this. When somebody brutes your login page or SSH server, what do you do? Nothing. It should be trivial to report IPs and timestamps back to ISPs. Many ISPs are already required to log connections at some level (destination and port) so this stands to verify the abuse report. Get a number of these shoot through for a single customer (IPs are unimportant at this point), and it's time for a nasty conversation. The machinery to make this work already exists. It's the ISP that's the problem. Threaten non-compliance of continued abuse (or a lack of reduction in botnet activity, whatever) with disconnection to the parent peer, so the ISP takes it seriously, and we'll see reporting rates rocket. Monitored at local level (FCC, Ofcom, etc), per existing ISP complaints. But yeah, no ISP is going to do this without serious threat of action.
- ThrustVectoring 8y ago
  I'm not sure this is a great idea - the "bad guys" have access to writing nastygrams to your ISP, too. You have to be careful creating the mechanisms for this, otherwise you could have a situation like YouTube has: it's trivially easy to report a video for containing your copyrighted content and then receive the ad income from it, so a lot of videos will get frivolous claims attached to them.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    Large ISPs in many countries are already required to log connection metadata. This could trivially be used to verify botnet activity, even identity CnC nodes. I'm sure there is still scope for abuse, but letting ISPs ignore abuse reports isn't working out well for the rest of the internet either. But yes, maybe attaching some real personal perjury liability —unlike the watered down DMCA abuse liability— might be a good idea. Good network admins know what abuse looks like and have logs to corroborate.
    - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
      YouTube's system doesn't even require a DMCA complaint AFAICT, it just requires you to tell YouTube that you own the copyright.
arwineap 8y ago
BGP hijacking is pretty obviously bad-actor from the perspective of companies trying to give internet access. I do see your argument for a slippery slope, but in this case the example given is clearly in the core competency of the company. There's no morals needed; this is how the internet is supposed to work, and you've bypassed that. Kick him out. We don't think about slippery slopes when a renter starts burning the house down; it's clearly within the homeowners rights to start evicting.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Yes, there are definitely two points to address. I wasn't really touching the "why did it take 4 years?" because so many others have, I was teetering on edge of the logical next step of enforcing network rules globally.

oliwarner 8y ago

I think it would have to be a single multi-signatory convention. And part of that stipulates that you can only peer against networks in signatory nations. The process of deciding that sort of law would be awful but if everybody focussed on serious and network focussed crime and not protecting Mickey Mouse et al, something good could come from it. But you are probably right. The US —esp with current leadership— could very easily force protectionist terms on others. Nobody would want to be separated from the US. Switzerland would have no leverage. African countries would have no leverage. The EU and China might have a chance, but the latter especially stands to lose a lot more than it could gain. China still needs access to a global market. It's definitely has potential to be deeply insidious. But with the value of the network, I'm just surprised people aren't suggesting more things like this. To be clear, I'm not advocating this. I just see it as an inevitability.

oliwarner 8y ago

On the point of ISP pro-activeness, I really just mean that —without a warrant or other court order (or national security edict)— they currently do somewhere between zilch and nothing with abuse emails. And everybody on the Internet knows this. When somebody brutes your login page or SSH server, what do you do? Nothing. It should be trivial to report IPs and timestamps back to ISPs. Many ISPs are already required to log connections at some level (destination and port) so this stands to verify the abuse report. Get a number of these shoot through for a single customer (IPs are unimportant at this point), and it's time for a nasty conversation. The machinery to make this work already exists. It's the ISP that's the problem. Threaten non-compliance of continued abuse (or a lack of reduction in botnet activity, whatever) with disconnection to the parent peer, so the ISP takes it seriously, and we'll see reporting rates rocket. Monitored at local level (FCC, Ofcom, etc), per existing ISP complaints. But yeah, no ISP is going to do this without serious threat of action.

ThrustVectoring 8y ago
I'm not sure this is a great idea - the "bad guys" have access to writing nastygrams to your ISP, too. You have to be careful creating the mechanisms for this, otherwise you could have a situation like YouTube has: it's trivially easy to report a video for containing your copyrighted content and then receive the ad income from it, so a lot of videos will get frivolous claims attached to them.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Large ISPs in many countries are already required to log connection metadata. This could trivially be used to verify botnet activity, even identity CnC nodes. I'm sure there is still scope for abuse, but letting ISPs ignore abuse reports isn't working out well for the rest of the internet either. But yes, maybe attaching some real personal perjury liability —unlike the watered down DMCA abuse liability— might be a good idea. Good network admins know what abuse looks like and have logs to corroborate.
  - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
    YouTube's system doesn't even require a DMCA complaint AFAICT, it just requires you to tell YouTube that you own the copyright.

arwineap 8y ago

BGP hijacking is pretty obviously bad-actor from the perspective of companies trying to give internet access. I do see your argument for a slippery slope, but in this case the example given is clearly in the core competency of the company. There's no morals needed; this is how the internet is supposed to work, and you've bypassed that. Kick him out. We don't think about slippery slopes when a renter starts burning the house down; it's clearly within the homeowners rights to start evicting.

oliwarner 8y ago
Yes, there are definitely two points to address. I wasn't really touching the "why did it take 4 years?" because so many others have, I was teetering on edge of the logical next step of enforcing network rules globally.