nanog mailing list archives
Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:20:25 -0400
On 9/27/11 7:50 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:57 AM, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com> wrote: [snip]Certainly, hijacking google.com NS records to JOMAX.NET would be a criminal interference. After all, that's all DNSsec signed now, isn't it?I would rather see DNSSEC and TLS/HTTPS get implemented end to end.
They are.
The last thing we need is a court to step in and say "It's not legal for an ISP to blacklist, block, or redirect traffic, to any hostname or IP address."
Don't distort my words. It amuses me when so-called conservative cyber-libertarians hate the idea of courts stepping in to enforce laws, except the laws governing their own contracts enforcing payments regardless of the quality of their goods. The cable and satellite industry forced through digital protection acts -- to protect their revenue streams. Now, it's time to use those acts against them. It's not legal for an ISP to modify computer data. Especially digitally signed data. That's a criminal offense. It's not legal for a vendor to sell or give away equipment that aids interception and modification of data. That's a criminal offense.
Most likely the ISPs' lawyers were smart enough to include a clause in the ToS/AUP allowing the ISP to intercept, blackhole, or redirect access to any hostname or IP address.
It's not legal to insert a clause allowing criminal conduct. There's no safe haven for criminal conduct.
The name for an ISP intercepting traffic from its own users is not "interference" or "DoS", because they're breaking the operation of (er) only their own network.
No, they're breaking the operation of my network and my computers. My network connects to their network.
The solution is to spread their name as widely as possible, so consumers can make an informed choice if they wish to avoid service providers that engage in abusive practices, and bring it attention to regulators if the service providers are acting as an abusive monopoly in regards to their interception practices.
There are no choices. They *are* abusive monopolies. Why are "regulators" better than courts? After all, the regulators will also involve courts.
Current thread:
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue, (continued)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Jimmy Hess (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Owen DeLong (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Jimmy Hess (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Owen DeLong (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Jussi Peltola (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Chris Adams (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Brett Frankenberger (Sep 28)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 28)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Rubens Kuhl (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Matthew Palmer (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue William Allen Simpson (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Rubens Kuhl (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue David Miller (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue William Allen Simpson (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue John Levine (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Nick Hilliard (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue JC Dill (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Robert Bonomi (Sep 27)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Martin Millnert (Sep 28)
- Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue Jimmy Hess (Sep 28)