Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Rescheduled: P2P file sharing national security and personal security risks
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:39:49 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote:
By trying to get around this and requiring soft targets, such as
under-represented (OK - under-lobbied to be accurate) industry segments like
ISPs, to do this work 'unpaid' is a way of making the politicians look
competent and make any self-policed industry look bad when something is
missed or goes wrong.

Except this is not "self-policing."  ISPs are not being asked to police
what ISPs do.  For the most part ISPs don't attack their customer's (or
anyone else's) computers.  Remember, the traffic generally flows THROUGH
the ISP's network, it doesn't come FROM the ISP.

ISPs are being asked to control what their customers can do.

Yet another analogy, its a bit like asking grocery stores to "self-police"
their customer's eating habits.  Should grocery stores be responsible that
the public only buys healthy food or holding the grocery store liable for
the hospital bills when customers buy junk food. ISPs generally exert
even less control over their customers than a grocery store, and don't
have double coupons.

Most ISPs don't police (or self-police) their customers' use of the
Internet.  Like a grocery store, if a customer is harassing other
customers, the grocery store may ask them not to come back.  But
generally the customer just moves on to another grocery store.  Its
up to the police to arrest people engaged in criminal activity.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]