From: Kai Schlichting <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:57:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Fw: Administrivia: ORBS [LONG]

At Friday 05:00 PM 1/14/00 , Randy Bush wrote:

> or maybe the collocation provider sees security as THEIR business and
> something THEY provide the customer.  and maybe they see folk from outside
> 'testing' their network to be similar to someone walking down the street
> testing homeowners' doorknobs.

And this leads us straight back to what I wrote at the end:

  ORBS may rattle doors, but its for control purposes only. Kind of like
  your insurance claims adjuster finding your Jaguar unlocked in front of
  your house: he isn't driving off with it, but he will revoke your theft
  coverage, then go on to make a factual entry into insurance carriers'
  shared databases that will subsequently prevent you from getting theft
  coverage with any other insurance. True and tried methods in the credit
  reporting and insurance industries.

The argument of "security" is completely bogus, due to the selective
nature of the blocks, aimed at a single entity/network. Indeed I am
calling anyone who says he is filtering ORBS or any other 'public'
relay scanner for security reasons a f****** p**** o* s*** : lies from
A to Z, 1 to 10 and to !

> not that i agree with this position completely, but i can see how someone
> might hold that opinion.  but your self-righteous hyperbole is rather over
> the line.

the facts of the matter are ugly. And they point to people running Internet operations with the attitude of the head-honcho of a brothel: legal? illegal? dangerous? filthy? spreading diseases ? unfulfilled promises ? Shut the f*** up and fork over the damn money ! And if you don't like what we do, get the f*** out ! So much for consumer protection. How you can label what I said as hyperbole is beyond me:

look around you: crooks and Dilbert-bosses are running the Internet, and I have no incentive to be quiet about it. Connect the facts. Discover the web of deceit. Unless you sit on $20M of stock options, you will find something wrong with the Internet. >> Those who violate principles of responsible networking morally forfeit any >> claim of protection under the same principles. > > somehow, i think this high-sounding moral stand would not prevail in a court > of non-vigilante law. in fact, crackers who tried it as a defense failed. > > randy And which crackers (define crackers) would that be. I am not talking about giving perpetrators rights to trash places and commit real crimes here, I am talking about voiding of victim's rights in the face of stupidity: if you ignore common sense (the most valuable and rare currency in America), you will get burned, and you have no right to cry foul. Let me tell you how fast a car left on the side of a highway in New York City disappears, piece by piece: 10 days. You drive by it every day and it seems to lose parts every single day, until the NYPD tows the carcass away, after some 14 days or so. Do you honestly believe that the victim should be compensated for theft by his (uhm, MY) insurance, after leaving his broken-down vehicle there, unattended ? And as far as the court goes: Guilt, as well as the degree of punishment (if any) in a court is usually measured by how easy it was to commit the crime. The harder it was, the more intent+effort it took and the higher the proceeds of the crime turned out to be, the harsher the penalty would be. Which relates directly to how easy the victim chose to make it for the perpetrator to commit the crime. bye,Kai