5 ms·

> only international peering The concepts of "national" and "international" don't map very well to the internet. Many companies run multiple ASes, and many co

> 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.

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.