- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
by phishing＠storey.xxx 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

1 0

FW: RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02 Validates Database Attributes
by Erik Bais 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

Sorry for cross posting. This should have go to the correct WG for the policy. Erik On 08/09/2017, 09:22, "Erik Bais" <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> wrote: Hi, Having correct and up to date contact information is already a part of the ARC Process for the RIPE NCC. Each and every LIR will get a regular out-reach call / email from the RIPE NCC to go over their contact details, specific questions about their resources, usage and other stuff. Not having a valid or up to date or working abuse mailbox as an option to be able to de-register resources is something I would not recommend. Any kind of de-registration of resources should not be dictated by only a missing or invalid abuse-c … This means that if by some reason .. a LIR can’t be reached by mail, it might cause their resources to be removed … So I would strongly object to this policy or kind of thinking. You also need to keep in mind that there are a lot of resource holders that have no contract (Legacy holders) with the RIPE NCC.. so RIPE wouldn’t even be able to enforce this. Also, the Legacy space is not under policy .. so the biggest group of ‘problematic’ resources won’t be fixed by this .. Regards, Erik Bais On 07/09/2017, 14:05, "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: Dear colleagues, We just published RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation", to the Anti-Abuse Working Group mailing list. The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-c:" information, and to follow up in cases where contact information is found to be invalid. As this proposal relates to contact information put into the RIPE Database, we would like to notify the Database Working Group specifically. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 October 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

upcoming policy proposal for Anti-Abuse WG
by Marco Schmidt 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hello Brian and Tobias, How are you? You got already your ticket to Dubai? I just want to inform you that likely a policy proposal will find a way to your working group. Gregory from Europol just contacted me, as he want to add a validation requirement to the policy "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database". His proposal looked pretty advanced to me. I gave him some feedback and explained how to start the formal PDP - by contacting you :) I told Greg to put me in cc when he'll send you the proposal. In case he forgets this, can you please add me in your potential reply so I can start the preparation for the publishing? Regards, Marco

3 3

Something to think about when considering abuse
by ox 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hi, Not sure if any of you saw this, Re: EU Commissioner and how it is probably good idea to not criticize Google if you have absolutely any dealings with it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-amer… Some of us may have already learned this the hard way. I think abuse from and by huge multinationals requires 'special' rules/approach/etc - as fallout and silent discrimination or "black balling" is a reality. As electronic intelligence takes over many functions, this type of abuse can actually be invisible and very pervasive in its silent erosive destruction. Maybe not as much from Google right now, (as imho Google's evil is still evolving) but some of the others are more active. Although, at Google, evil has entered the mono culture and reasoning with someone that "is in charge" is not that easy/possible as they are the final word. Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 25 Aug '17

25 Aug '17

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

4 3

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by Gareth Llewellyn 22 Aug '17

22 Aug '17

-------- Original Message -------- On 22 Aug 2017, 06:21, ox wrote: The Internet is all about inter operation, co operation and if something is not legal, why not have laws and law enforcement deal with it? All societies have laws, we all have real Police. Why should companies be deciding what is legal and what is not? Our Police and our Laws have become something secondary to these global companies. I'm not accountable to US, Chinese, Russian, Nigerian etc etc laws and neither are my users. We can't be shutting down pinknews.co.uk because some regime regressed a few decades of civil liberties and made their content illegal. Also in places such as the UK our laws haven't exactly been stellar at respecting the right to privacy or against self incrimination in a digital age. "Co-operating" with law enforcement should go as far as local MLATs require and no more.

2 2

Abuse Police
by ox 22 Aug '17

22 Aug '17

Hi All, I would like to propose a serious (and possibly long) conversation about policing abuse. In depth, as it relates to DDOS, AS jacking, pump n dump and everything Internet abuse. Questions posed by Matthew Prince, http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1… "Prince wants to spark a conversation about how tech should respond to abhorrent content, and whether content should be policed by registrars, browsers, or social networks" This is relevant to all of us, as well as RIPE (all registries) and anyone involved in Internet Abuse as it is far reaching. the NY Times wrote about how social media platforms (including multinationals like Google) are businesses and quoted Kendra Admas: "legal talismans" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/magazine/how-hate-groups-forced-online-p… My initial comment is that I support what Ronald said (Educate/Education) - To be clear, I am against registrars deciding do de-register domains based on domain content or politics, I am against hosting companies policing content (this is a job for law enforcement) and as the USA seems to be changing. (Corporations are becoming more fascist - Google deciding what may be searched (no user options) Registrars deciding what random domain names may publish on websites, Hosting companies (even here in EU) deciding what example.com may say on a website. We are obviously at or close to a tipping point. It does not help that many important tech companies are mostly all based/operated from the USA and that these tech companies are now exposed as powerful policing authorities - who will enforce (or try to enforce) their opinions/mono culture/pseudo laws on the planet. For example: There was a disagreement with Google recently. - this disagreement was not related to politics, social discourse or anything of even much importance. It was a disagreement on the interpretation of a double blind clinical trial (posted on Eureka Alert) - Google has decided to devalue (and even remove) search results based on whether Google thinks it "agrees" with an opinion or not. I have also had disagreements with Google. It is simply an impossible battle as Google staff themselves are not "free" to express themselves - and if a certain policy team says "xyz" then "xyz" it is and basta! The google staffers that agree with you have no authority (and will never even think of) over the "policy team" - so, these 'policy teams" in various multi nationals are shaping the planet in their image and we are all just along for the ride? It is my argument that this type of behavior is in fact also Internet Abuse. - The Internet is all about inter operation, co operation and if something is not legal, why not have laws and law enforcement deal with it? All societies have laws, we all have real Police. Why should companies be deciding what is legal and what is not? Our Police and our Laws have become something secondary to these global companies. Countries like China has clearly refused this acceptance and I think it is time that many other countries also stand up and simply say "no". Andre

1 0