RE: Statements against new.net?

[Jeff Workman <jworkman () pimpworks org>]

Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Simon Higgs exclaimed:

> At 12:06 PM 3/16/01 -0500, Jeff Workman wrote:
>
>
> 4. Stability of the root zone and criminal consequences
>
>     It should be recognized that in the United States, altering DNS
>     records to the detriment of a pre-existing organization is covered
>     under federal computer fraud statute, 18 United States Code, Section
>     1030[6]. As a result, criminal convictions have resulted from the
>     alteration of DNS information[7]. Most countries now have similar
>     laws.

I don't recall saying squat about modifying the root zone.  I was
referring to local nameservers that are under your (or my) administrative
control.  Tell me how this is any different than "content filtering"
packages that are in use today (X-Stop comes to mind.)  Sure, the
underlying mechanism is different, but the result is the same.  User tries
to access a site that is administratively prohibited, and is redirected to
a local web page explaining to them why.  Are we going to prosecute all of
these organizations now?

If it's *my* DNS server running on *my* equipment using *my* bandwidth,
then I can do whatever I want to with it, right?  Just as long as I don't
try any cache poisoning foo or otherwise propagate my authoritative
'new.net' zone to other DNS servers that aren't under my administrative
control.

> So instead of wasting energy making the case against you for the
> prosecution, why don't you use that energy productively in this situation?
> New.net already know this. They don't yet know how to go about it.

Why doesn't new.net start sending me monthly paychecks?  Since they're
*all* about money, then if I am going to help them get their business off
the ground, then where's mine?

Jeff

-- 
"...and the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the
fire." -Joe Zeff in the SDM.