6 ms·

There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (as

by kfogel 6y ago

There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (assuming that Guilmette's claim is correct that DDos-Guard doesn't really have a physical Latin American presence), but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selective enforcement. In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. And selective enforcement at the infrastructure level is much more serious than it happening at the edge level (see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190712/14400642581/failure-courts-regulators-to-understand-difference-between-infrastructure-providers-edge-providers-is-going-to-be-problem.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190712/14400642581/failu... for why this distinction is important).

hluska 6y ago
I wonder if this is more of a case where a NIC will only take action if someone is motivated enough to do this level of research. So maybe less selective enforcement and more selective researcher attention?
- wtallis 6y ago
  Yeah. This doesn't seem to have to potential to go as badly wrong as a lot of other high-profile examples of selective enforcement. The fact that events can play out this way and seem exceptional (ie. happening only due to political motive) pretty much implies that IPv4 addresses are not really scarce yet and remain cheap enough that hardly anyone bothers to root out this kind of misbehavior. Which also means it should be easy to acquire replacement IP addresses from a more appropriate registrar.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    The potential is only lower until people figure out that looking for irregularities in people's IP address allocation is a great way to deplatform people you don't like. I'd say that grace period is just about over.
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      That's assuming that using fraudulently acquired IP allocations is a normal and common occurrence. It is not. This is very distinctly abnormal.
    - hluska 6y ago
      I’m not trying to be argumentative but I don’t really see this as a net loss. In fact, I think it’s a positive for everyone. Fraudulently obtained IPs are bad for the overall health of the internet. It’s also bad for engineers - I don’t see how or even why you would want to build a resilient, high availability application on a fraudulently obtained IP. If anything, this will encourage clients to ask questions when they’re negotiating cloud hosting services and hell, we might even see contracts evolve to provide better protections for cloud users.
      - andrewflnr 6y ago
        Fair enough. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  Probably, yeah. This sort of fraud is pretty common. Sometimes it's caught when the IP space is used to send spam or host obviously illegal content (spam landing pages, botnet C&C, CP, drugs, etc), sometimes it's caught in other ways, like when a shady DDoS protection outfit uses it to host a high-profile web site.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    > a shady DDoS protection outfit Shady because they're Russians? Or shady because they're using a shell-company to achieve their goals?
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Shady because of the customers they are serving, it sounds like.
- krageon 6y ago
  In companies such as these there is an absolute mountain of abuse to dig through, so as a researcher it is pretty normal to have all sorts of different reasons to devote more or less attention to a subject. Very routine things will see less scrutiny, whereas very objectionable things (think child porn, organisations responsible for bombings, ethnofascist rings, etc) will see a little more. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, it's more or less inevitable so the focus should be to have the "very objectionable things" actually confined to a set that is sort of agreed upon.
klyrs 6y ago
Attacking the capitol building got LOTS of attention by a lot of people. It was an extremely conspicuous, highly publicized crime. So yeah, folks are looking into the people involved, and their associates. Much of enforcement relies on the public to notice and report wrongdoing.
- treeman79 6y ago
  What about taking over neighbors burning government buildings and setting up your own government?
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  If you don't like the government, you make your own, no? How is it a crime? It's a suggested action.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > If you don't like the government, you make your own, no? How is it a crime? Because the Insurrection Act of 1807 [1] says it is. Less bluntly, the point of democracy is to give people peaceful means by which to affect their government. Storming the Capitol is not a peaceful mean. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
    - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
      The problem is that, in their heads, they were denied those peaceful means, so they think they're justified in resorting to violence as a last resort. Their premise might be completely ridiculous, but the logic that follows is sound. Then again, that line of thinking means the blame shifts from those doing the assaulting to those fabricating the accusations that justify it, which happens to be mostly users of precisely those platforms that got deleted.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        If you get defrauded, blackmailed, whathaveyou, into committing a crime, it's still on your head. Yes, the fraudster bears some responsibility, but it's not like the folks who stormed the capitol had guns to their heads. They knowingly, willfully, deliberately, with pre-planning, broke the damned law. Ironic how the folks involved are all "law and order" when it comes to most matters of policing but now that they're facing charges of sedition it's all "wait is it actually a crime if I believe that my righteous cause justifies violence?"
gruez 6y ago
>In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. Let's say 20% of waiters at a restaurant under-report their tips to the IRS. It would be objectionable if the IRS decided to target one guy in particular because the agent had a grudge on him, but it's far less objectionable if the IRS acted on an anonymous report that the guy was evading taxes. If anything, it would be more objectionable if the IRS didn't act, and said "well 20% of waiters are evaders as well, so it would be unfair to investigate that guy because we don't investigate the rest".
- 1123581321 6y ago
  There is a step further to take, in this example, as the public regulator can decide whether or not to accept that they selectively enforce based on the bias in the tips they receive. In the real example at hand, as long as the US government is happy with the de facto regulatory behavior of private individuals and organizations, they can maintain the status quo, perhaps at some cost of effort. If this leads to justice at a low political and financial cost, then it is not necessarily a problem that defaults are selectively maintained, of course.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. So you're fine with private employers who do criminal background checks on black applicants but not white applicants? Or a third party entity that does background checks on all black people (and only black people) and then submits the results to employers whenever they apply for a job?
  - aegis4244 6y ago
    Being black is a protected class. Being an asshole is not.
a254613e 6y ago
>but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons Can you name some examples of this where someone was fraudulently claiming IPs, but corresponding NICs refused to take action when provided evidence like in this case?
dwild 6y ago
> the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selective enforcement. I guess they just can't police 100% of their space, it just too big. Thus yeah it does make sense to only act once you get complains. The fact that this time it was content-motivated change nothing to how it's enforced. > In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. What? How? It more like the police answering to complains, which happens to be much more frequent against black people because of racism. Which definitely is the case right now. The solution would be to not answer to complains? Not really... There was a complains raised, it was investigated, and they were found to be infringing on the policy. There was no selective enforcement.

by kfogel 6y ago

hluska 6y ago

I wonder if this is more of a case where a NIC will only take action if someone is motivated enough to do this level of research. So maybe less selective enforcement and more selective researcher attention?

wtallis 6y ago
Yeah. This doesn't seem to have to potential to go as badly wrong as a lot of other high-profile examples of selective enforcement. The fact that events can play out this way and seem exceptional (ie. happening only due to political motive) pretty much implies that IPv4 addresses are not really scarce yet and remain cheap enough that hardly anyone bothers to root out this kind of misbehavior. Which also means it should be easy to acquire replacement IP addresses from a more appropriate registrar.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  The potential is only lower until people figure out that looking for irregularities in people's IP address allocation is a great way to deplatform people you don't like. I'd say that grace period is just about over.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    That's assuming that using fraudulently acquired IP allocations is a normal and common occurrence. It is not. This is very distinctly abnormal.
  - hluska 6y ago
    I’m not trying to be argumentative but I don’t really see this as a net loss. In fact, I think it’s a positive for everyone. Fraudulently obtained IPs are bad for the overall health of the internet. It’s also bad for engineers - I don’t see how or even why you would want to build a resilient, high availability application on a fraudulently obtained IP. If anything, this will encourage clients to ask questions when they’re negotiating cloud hosting services and hell, we might even see contracts evolve to provide better protections for cloud users.
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
      Fair enough. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
duskwuff 6y ago
Probably, yeah. This sort of fraud is pretty common. Sometimes it's caught when the IP space is used to send spam or host obviously illegal content (spam landing pages, botnet C&C, CP, drugs, etc), sometimes it's caught in other ways, like when a shady DDoS protection outfit uses it to host a high-profile web site.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > a shady DDoS protection outfit Shady because they're Russians? Or shady because they're using a shell-company to achieve their goals?
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Shady because of the customers they are serving, it sounds like.
krageon 6y ago
In companies such as these there is an absolute mountain of abuse to dig through, so as a researcher it is pretty normal to have all sorts of different reasons to devote more or less attention to a subject. Very routine things will see less scrutiny, whereas very objectionable things (think child porn, organisations responsible for bombings, ethnofascist rings, etc) will see a little more. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, it's more or less inevitable so the focus should be to have the "very objectionable things" actually confined to a set that is sort of agreed upon.

klyrs 6y ago

Attacking the capitol building got LOTS of attention by a lot of people. It was an extremely conspicuous, highly publicized crime. So yeah, folks are looking into the people involved, and their associates. Much of enforcement relies on the public to notice and report wrongdoing.

treeman79 6y ago
What about taking over neighbors burning government buildings and setting up your own government?
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
If you don't like the government, you make your own, no? How is it a crime? It's a suggested action.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > If you don't like the government, you make your own, no? How is it a crime? Because the Insurrection Act of 1807 [1] says it is. Less bluntly, the point of democracy is to give people peaceful means by which to affect their government. Storming the Capitol is not a peaceful mean. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    The problem is that, in their heads, they were denied those peaceful means, so they think they're justified in resorting to violence as a last resort. Their premise might be completely ridiculous, but the logic that follows is sound. Then again, that line of thinking means the blame shifts from those doing the assaulting to those fabricating the accusations that justify it, which happens to be mostly users of precisely those platforms that got deleted.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      If you get defrauded, blackmailed, whathaveyou, into committing a crime, it's still on your head. Yes, the fraudster bears some responsibility, but it's not like the folks who stormed the capitol had guns to their heads. They knowingly, willfully, deliberately, with pre-planning, broke the damned law. Ironic how the folks involved are all "law and order" when it comes to most matters of policing but now that they're facing charges of sedition it's all "wait is it actually a crime if I believe that my righteous cause justifies violence?"

gruez 6y ago

>In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. Let's say 20% of waiters at a restaurant under-report their tips to the IRS. It would be objectionable if the IRS decided to target one guy in particular because the agent had a grudge on him, but it's far less objectionable if the IRS acted on an anonymous report that the guy was evading taxes. If anything, it would be more objectionable if the IRS didn't act, and said "well 20% of waiters are evaders as well, so it would be unfair to investigate that guy because we don't investigate the rest".

1123581321 6y ago
There is a step further to take, in this example, as the public regulator can decide whether or not to accept that they selectively enforce based on the bias in the tips they receive. In the real example at hand, as long as the US government is happy with the de facto regulatory behavior of private individuals and organizations, they can maintain the status quo, perhaps at some cost of effort. If this leads to justice at a low political and financial cost, then it is not necessarily a problem that defaults are selectively maintained, of course.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. So you're fine with private employers who do criminal background checks on black applicants but not white applicants? Or a third party entity that does background checks on all black people (and only black people) and then submits the results to employers whenever they apply for a job?
- aegis4244 6y ago
  Being black is a protected class. Being an asshole is not.

a254613e 6y ago

>but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons Can you name some examples of this where someone was fraudulently claiming IPs, but corresponding NICs refused to take action when provided evidence like in this case?

dwild 6y ago

> the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selective enforcement. I guess they just can't police 100% of their space, it just too big. Thus yeah it does make sense to only act once you get complains. The fact that this time it was content-motivated change nothing to how it's enforced. > In principle, it would be like police enforcing certain traffic laws (say, about changing lanes or making a turn without signaling) much more strictly against black people than against white people. What? How? It more like the police answering to complains, which happens to be much more frequent against black people because of racism. Which definitely is the case right now. The solution would be to not answer to complains? Not really... There was a complains raised, it was investigated, and they were found to be infringing on the policy. There was no selective enforcement.