5 ms·

Russian and China Telecom constantly claim networks that aren't theirs to begin with. ... and coretx's "nobody wants to peer with an idiot" is clearly not work

Russian and China Telecom constantly claim networks that aren't theirs to begin with. ... and coretx's "nobody wants to peer with an idiot" is clearly not working here. These networks are still being peered with. Maybe the regulators should start by regulating only international peering.

nine_k 2y ago
Because they are not idiots. Were they idiots, they'd quickly lose to someone more clueful. The idea to regulate only international peering looks best so far. It's much like (m)any other regulations that are only present on the border between countries, and are absent inside.
- alfons_foobar 2y ago
  > only international peering The concepts of "national" and "international" don't map very well to the internet. Many companies run multiple ASes, and many companies are peering at IXPs all over the world...
  - a_random_canuck 2y ago
    They need to. Honestly we need a way to completely segregate Chinese and Russian networks off, as well as anyone who peers with them. They are using our open networks to brazenly attack us in broad daylight… it’s time to fight back.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - emchammer 2y ago
      How many ways do they have to transmit to Western networks? Proxies, tunnels, rooted machines, sending balloons with 5G modems that dwell in our airspace for days? I would much rather see a 100:1 defensive effort in operating system security. Lockdown mode in macOS is like Spinal Tap's amplifier that goes to 11. Why not just have 10 be the most secure, and make it go up to 10?
      - azinman2 2y ago
        You only need one weak link in the chain. Computer security is effectively an oxymoron.
      - jolux 2y ago
        Because lockdown mode makes a lot of compromises for user experience that most people don’t need to worry about — disabling JIT, for example.
  - coretx 2y ago
    "Nationalizing the internet like the telephony system" is a meme and agenda among some ITU people, originating from China and Russia. And now the American FCC comes with this... Perhaps the FBI's counter intelligence branch should do a better job because this smells fishy.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    At the very least, limiting such regulations to international-only limits their blast radius. With China specifically it could work, because they internally control their points of peering with the rest of the world. With Russia, less so. With a "normal" Western country, likely infeasible, but in the latter case the internet access is not controlled and weaponized by the government, so there is no real need, self-regulation suffices.
RobotToaster 2y ago
Wouldn't regulating who you can peer with potentially violate the 1st amendment? Since you're effectively regulating who someone's[0] computer can talk to? [0] corporations being legally people.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - RobotToaster 2y ago
    I'm not American, I'm just vaguely familiar with American law, and was curious how that wouldn't be the case.
- gruez 2y ago
  Like most things in law, it's not straightforward as "it's speech so there's nothing the government can do about it". I don't know the case law on this, but given that the FCC has been around for decades, most of their regulations are about what/how companies/people can talk to, and their authority hasn't been struck down, I'm going to guess that they're on solid legal footing when it comes to enacting regulations.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The 1st Amendment is not an absolute bar on any restrictions on speech whatsoever. It is a bar on state action to limit (or compel) protected speech on the basis of content. I could load you up with legalese here, but the rather simple explanation of the matter is that, if it's not restricting speech for political opinions (in a very expansive sense of political), then it probably will pass constitutional muster. If I have the underlying context right here, this is effectively regulation prohibiting people from lying in the course of their normal operations, which smells a lot like a typical fraud statute, and government restrictions on fraud-like things have almost always been upheld as constitutional. (The main exception I'm aware of is US v Alvarez, but even there, SCOTUS said it was only a problem to ban lying for lying's sake; banning lying with the purpose of getting a benefit is acceptable).
benprone 2y ago
coretx’s “…a idiot…” and “privatize everything and force non-owner classes to capitulate to private power” make it clear coretx is exactly the kind of idiot no one should peer with Government is a “multi stakeholder” model. Whether that or private you get a committee determining based upon the biases of the committee. Same old human bullshit all the way down no matter the semantic bullshit that annotates how the technical decision was made.

nine_k 2y ago

Because they are not idiots. Were they idiots, they'd quickly lose to someone more clueful. The idea to regulate only international peering looks best so far. It's much like (m)any other regulations that are only present on the border between countries, and are absent inside.

alfons_foobar 2y ago
> only international peering The concepts of "national" and "international" don't map very well to the internet. Many companies run multiple ASes, and many companies are peering at IXPs all over the world...
- a_random_canuck 2y ago
  They need to. Honestly we need a way to completely segregate Chinese and Russian networks off, as well as anyone who peers with them. They are using our open networks to brazenly attack us in broad daylight… it’s time to fight back.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - emchammer 2y ago
    How many ways do they have to transmit to Western networks? Proxies, tunnels, rooted machines, sending balloons with 5G modems that dwell in our airspace for days? I would much rather see a 100:1 defensive effort in operating system security. Lockdown mode in macOS is like Spinal Tap's amplifier that goes to 11. Why not just have 10 be the most secure, and make it go up to 10?
    - azinman2 2y ago
      You only need one weak link in the chain. Computer security is effectively an oxymoron.
    - jolux 2y ago
      Because lockdown mode makes a lot of compromises for user experience that most people don’t need to worry about — disabling JIT, for example.
- coretx 2y ago
  "Nationalizing the internet like the telephony system" is a meme and agenda among some ITU people, originating from China and Russia. And now the American FCC comes with this... Perhaps the FBI's counter intelligence branch should do a better job because this smells fishy.
- nine_k 2y ago
  At the very least, limiting such regulations to international-only limits their blast radius. With China specifically it could work, because they internally control their points of peering with the rest of the world. With Russia, less so. With a "normal" Western country, likely infeasible, but in the latter case the internet access is not controlled and weaponized by the government, so there is no real need, self-regulation suffices.

RobotToaster 2y ago

Wouldn't regulating who you can peer with potentially violate the 1st amendment? Since you're effectively regulating who someone's[0] computer can talk to? [0] corporations being legally people.

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
[flagged]
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  I'm not American, I'm just vaguely familiar with American law, and was curious how that wouldn't be the case.
gruez 2y ago
Like most things in law, it's not straightforward as "it's speech so there's nothing the government can do about it". I don't know the case law on this, but given that the FCC has been around for decades, most of their regulations are about what/how companies/people can talk to, and their authority hasn't been struck down, I'm going to guess that they're on solid legal footing when it comes to enacting regulations.
jcranmer 2y ago
The 1st Amendment is not an absolute bar on any restrictions on speech whatsoever. It is a bar on state action to limit (or compel) protected speech on the basis of content. I could load you up with legalese here, but the rather simple explanation of the matter is that, if it's not restricting speech for political opinions (in a very expansive sense of political), then it probably will pass constitutional muster. If I have the underlying context right here, this is effectively regulation prohibiting people from lying in the course of their normal operations, which smells a lot like a typical fraud statute, and government restrictions on fraud-like things have almost always been upheld as constitutional. (The main exception I'm aware of is US v Alvarez, but even there, SCOTUS said it was only a problem to ban lying for lying's sake; banning lying with the purpose of getting a benefit is acceptable).

benprone 2y ago

coretx’s “…a idiot…” and “privatize everything and force non-owner classes to capitulate to private power” make it clear coretx is exactly the kind of idiot no one should peer with Government is a “multi stakeholder” model. Whether that or private you get a committee determining based upon the biases of the committee. Same old human bullshit all the way down no matter the semantic bullshit that annotates how the technical decision was made.