Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Hi, On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 07:55:01AM +0200, andre@ox.co.za wrote:
Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
I like this. I'm not sure if there are "false positives", but the general idea feels good, and thinking about it a bit, it seems to match what I consider "abuse" and does not match "non-abuse" - of course, this is now tied to what someone would consider as "infringe upon usage rights". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
I like this.
I'm not sure if there are "false positives", but the general idea feels good, and thinking about it a bit, it seems to match what I consider "abuse" and does not match "non-abuse" - of course, this is now tied to what someone would consider as "infringe upon usage rights".
Thinking about this some more, this doesn't work "as is", because there are legal reason why someone could infringe on someon else's use rights - in cases specifically permitted by law. (Like, you're not permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone else's "freedom to move" - but there are reasons permitted by law when this is totally appropriate and not considered "abuse") Complicated. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: <snip snip>
- in cases specifically permitted by law. (Like, you're not permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone else's "freedom to move" - but there are reasons permitted by law when this is totally appropriate and not considered "abuse")
Complicated. Gert Doering
Good point! - As Sascha Luck also contributed "Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed upon" We do have to define abuse - Not only is it silly not to do that, it is patently an obstruction of the working of this very group. The only people who will try to sabotage, undermine or not to constructively contribute to the creation of an abuse definition - are those with nefarious intent. There simply is no other socially, ethically and openly acceptable reason to obstruct the process of defining what constitutes abuse. So, if we adapt the definition then: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE --------------------------------------------------------------------- The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource Reasoning ------------------------- "Sanctioned" - can have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as "usage rights". The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone what to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes everything I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as general as possible, to find a balance between freedom and responsibility. Andre
All, My response was to off list 'comments" and I apologize to the list. I clicked send, too soon, so I retract my previous post and offer only the following: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE --------------------------------------------------------------------- The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource Reasoning ------------------------- "Sanctioned" - can have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as "usage rights". The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone what to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes everything I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as general as possible, to find a balance between freedom and responsibility. Andre On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:04:24 +0200 andre@ox.co.za wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: <snip snip>
- in cases specifically permitted by law. (Like, you're not permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone else's "freedom to move" - but there are reasons permitted by law when this is totally appropriate and not considered "abuse")
Complicated. Gert Doering
Good point! - As Sascha Luck also contributed "Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed upon"
We do have to define abuse - Not only is it silly not to do that, it is patently an obstruction of the working of this very group.
The only people who will try to sabotage, undermine or not to constructively contribute to the creation of an abuse definition - are those with nefarious intent.
There simply is no other socially, ethically and openly acceptable reason to obstruct the process of defining what constitutes abuse.
So, if we adapt the definition then:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
Reasoning ------------------------- "Sanctioned" - can have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as "usage rights".
The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone what to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes everything
I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as general as possible, to find a balance between freedom and responsibility.
Andre
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
I like this.
I...don't. It is a meaningless political expression that can mean anything to anyone. Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed upon". rgds, Sascha Luck
On 8/14/2016 1:08 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
I like this.
I...don't.
It is a meaningless political expression that can mean anything to anyone. Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed upon".
I think this comment goes to the heart of the challenge, here. This group is focused on an operational topic. Its definitions should focus on operational issues. Such a focus requires defining things in very specific terms. In this context, I believe abuse concerns unauthorized access and to actions that inflict damage on others. This might need some elaboration, if folks want to worry about such things as persistency (duration or pattern) of the misbehavior, degree of damage, or the like. Also while 'intent' is an appealing reference with respect to abuse, I suggest that it's best reserved for legal discussions, not operational ones. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
I like this.
I...don't.
It is a meaningless political expression that can mean anything to anyone.
I think this comment goes to the heart of the challenge, here. This group is focused on an operational topic. Its definitions should focus on operational issues. Such a focus requires defining things in very specific terms.
In this context, I believe abuse concerns unauthorized access and to actions that inflict damage on others. This might need some elaboration, if folks want to worry about such things as persistency (duration or pattern) of the misbehaviour, degree of damage, or the like.
I'm with both Dave & Sascha on this; the proposed statement is woolly at best. -- Chris Phillips Service Operations - intY Ltd. ________________________________ Information in and attached to this electronic mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this electronic mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, copying, distribution or any other action in relation to this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and immediately and permanently delete it without making any copies or disclosing the contents to any other person. When addressed to our customers, any information contained in this electronic mail or in any attachment is subject to intY’s Terms & Conditions<http://www.intycascade.com/about-us/terms-and-conditions/>. We have scanned this electronic mail for viruses but we do not represent or warrant it to be virus free and recommend that you carry out your own virus checks on the electronic mail and any attachments. intY Ltd is a Limited Company, registered in England and Wales at 170 Aztec West, Bristol, BS32 4TN. Company Number: 3438922.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:29:56 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
On 8/14/2016 1:08 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource I like this. I...don't. In this context, I believe abuse concerns unauthorized access and to actions that inflict damage on others. This might need some elaboration, if folks want to worry about such things as persistency
<snip> Thank you so much for contributing! This is exactly what I am talking about! Unauthorized access is NOT ABUSE, in terms of the current definition: "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" And, this is the crux of it all, this defining of "abuse" is exactly why we require a definition. So, we are still at the same last definition, if you wish to add unauthorized abuse, then please amend the definition by adding something which assists in "defining things in very specific terms" Andre
I like the idea of “damage” or “harm” on others The “infringe on usage .. “ thing didn’t seem very clear to me and I don’t see how that would apply to spam etc., -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 15/08/2016, 15:29, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Dave Crocker" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: On 8/14/2016 1:08 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >>> The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of >>> another resource >> >> I like this. > > I...don't. > > It is a meaningless political expression that can mean anything > to anyone. Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel > their "rights" are being "infringed upon". I think this comment goes to the heart of the challenge, here. This group is focused on an operational topic. Its definitions should focus on operational issues. Such a focus requires defining things in very specific terms. In this context, I believe abuse concerns unauthorized access and to actions that inflict damage on others. This might need some elaboration, if folks want to worry about such things as persistency (duration or pattern) of the misbehavior, degree of damage, or the like. Also while 'intent' is an appealing reference with respect to abuse, I suggest that it's best reserved for legal discussions, not operational ones. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
participants (7)
-
andre＠ox.co.za -
Chris Phillips -
Dave Crocker -
Gert Doering -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
ox
-
Sascha Luck [ml]