They are originally from the manufacturer, but there are people who know how to modify them to clear the restrictions, and my understanding is, the criminals, particularly the bad ones, potentially have the capability to do this type of thing, and the "Expensive and invasive license" is only a hinderance to law-abiding citizens.
An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly.
If they restrict all high-flying drones to licensed drone pilots and low-flying within 5 miles of an airport, within 5 miles of low-flying firefighters or rescue copter/operations, and enforce it vigorously, that basically takes care of all current unreasonable dangers to aircraft from civillians' light drones. I'm more concerned about ISIS being able to modify drones for malicious use.
If I can't fly it in my own backyard, we have a problem.
If this prevents you from flying in your own backyard, then please do start a lawsuit.
Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.
Unfortunately, the way the legal system in the US works, nobody else can challenge the action of abuse that infringes a different person's fundamental liberties ---- in a perverse twist, the courts protect the government against challenges by refusing to recognize it as an infringement of my rights: If I can't prove the law actually causes me damage today (And "chilling" my activities is not sufficient, the harm has to already happened and be tangible and provable), then the courts use the concept of "lack of standing", in order to help regulators avoid any possibility of scrutiny over their abuses.
which puts them well out of harm's way when it comes to aircraft.
Unless the drone is carrying a malicious payload; hence the no-fly zone.
What they really need to put on them is tamper-resistant measurement instrumentation and logic that will throw an error, and refuse to fully launch, if a "stowaway" is detected, such as an extra device strapped to the drone.
I am imaging some kind of "self test" occurring during launch, and after in the air, before responding to commands, where all instruments are checked for reasonable measurement, and some type of physics test is done near the ground and the air, to confirm the drone is not carrying anything (Such as drugs, weapons, hazardous devices, or other stowaways, such as extra electronics mounted to it),
And failure of a test forces limited movement and gradual automatic descent.
And that is how a state becomes a tyranny. Forsaking liberty for security.
And now, there will be more violations (Of the new anti-Drone rule), thus justifying more new stricter and broader laws to hit the offenders with ---- AKA a positive feedback loop.
Not a terrible guess, but we've actually already been there and done that. In the early years, ISPs actually did only carry content from partner companies.
However, things were a bit different way back then.... these were really pre-ISP information services and BBSes, not ISPs....
they were a precursor to the consumer internet, and internet was seen as "the next big thing". The computer-using community was much smaller back then:
mostly technology enthusiasts greatly interested in the next big thing: Very Few consumers only dabbling to sell to in order to sustain
a business model. Definitely NOT the type of people who just stay on Facebook all day and perhaps some Youtube, Google for schoolwork, and not much else.
The demographics of internet users have now fundamentally changed, so it's potentially possible now that
an ISP could sustain a model of providing free service to just people who only want access to FB and Wikipedia.
The change in demographics means, that we could no longer be sure the AOL/MSN/Prodigy model dressed up to a 2016 version,
with some Apps added, could not succeed.
I'm basically saying, that the public has different values than what early internet users and technologists value, so they may make
different choices, But I still think the open internet is worth preserving, even if your average consumer does not value it or understand what a great thing it is, And that FB, et all, and whatever will come after them, actually do owe their existence to its openness.
As an IT technical admin of a non-public corporation; I will say that many of the cloud features of Windows 10 scare me greatly,
and I would have many concerns to address moving forward.
I do not believe it is necessarily justifiable that they block all deployment, but we may add special in-house requirements and restrictions on deployment, as we see necessary.
For example: we may need to take steps to disable or interrupt features considered a risk.
We expect our endpoints to not upload sensitive encryption keys to Microsoft (or partner) servers outside our control.
Good luck, we can't even get registration for guns that routinely kill innocent people
Great work continuing with the fear mongering. We know more about guns than drones, however.
If you exclude intentional suicides, there is evidence that countries who have done a total ban on guns have
equal or more deaths due to violent crime. Also, they even have gun crime --- remember, Paris is a Gun Free Zone, and, yet they
still have more serious, not less-serious incidents, b/c the gun wielders don't feel threatened, and police took more than 2 hours to respond. It's a controversial topic, and many people believe they need guns to defend themselves: when seconds count, the police are hours away, and securing the means to
defend yourself without interference or questioning from your government is a fundamental liberty that is among those this country was founded upon.
Also, the concern about registration is, one of distrust of the government safeguarding your privacy: they cannot even keep voter lists with personal addresses from hitting the public internet, And possible
future abuses or "suspicion of gun owners" or attempts to shame them.
For example: lists of registered gun owners sometimes fall into the hands of activist organizations, who might use the
lists to harass people, or attack people, or burglars who might want to steal from people.
Attend to the privacy issues FIRST, and get good privacy regulation, then we can talk about the possibility of registering
certain kinds of firearms.
IMO; it's more important to register who possess and exchanges ammunition.
Guns do nothing without efficient and safe ammunition, also, people can make their own guns more easily,
and ammunition has a limited shelf life, before it degrades.
Securing the means to your recreational indulgement in fancy experimental toys, and idle curiosity, or desire to play, to the detriment of
another person's safety, not so much.
There are people who would be concerned about restrictions on private drone use, But, I believe, not nearly so much, as there are people
who insist on having the proper tools to protect themselves and their loved ones.
In other words, it costs about the same to deliver one video or a million wikipedia pages.
You forget that there are Wikipedia pages with pictures and videos on the page.
Facebook's video service is also extremely popular on Facebook; people consume video content on all websites.
On some websites, there is more video available ---- presumably, some people like video content and flock to sites that have a larger selection.
But given no choice, they will watch Video on FB.
If the argument is the video media takes precious bandwidth, then to provide a 'light' service block multimedia, Video media and large file downloads, and media streaming, regardless of the provider.
it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn
videos from Xvideos.com. It does make sense that someone would offer to pay for your "free"
access to Wikipedia, but not offer to pay for your Hulu and Girls Gone Wild surfing.
Why does it make sense? Are you making a value judgement that Wikipedia has more useful merit, and streaming Hulu would be a recreational misallocation of bandwidth? Perhaps Hulu will be the next sponsor?
What about accessing a competing social network, and streaming cat videos on Facebook?
We're talking about non-neutral practices regarding ISP services.
It's a dangerous precedent if content providers are allowed to partner with ISPs, because soon the ISPs will seek more partnerships.
Eventually, a partnership becomes mandatory
Once enough major websites are accessible for free; people switch services to save money on their "internet" service, and then the open and free internet died that day --- from then on, only billion $$$ megacorporations could become a sponsor and have their website included in the public internet; by the end of the decade, only the few total nerds forking over $1000US a month to remain on the pay internet could see the non-sponsored websites.
Plus libraries and hospitals aren't selling private info to advertisers.
And they're not in the business of selling anything.
You can't go to a library and ask for a LIBRARY PREMIUM membership, that includes access to the entire collection.
There's no such thing as library non-members or BASIC members having access to browser only a portion of the works available.
Restrictions only exist in special libraries, such as those of research institutions or research archives that don't allow non-approved members any access at all.
And on special works unique to the library itself, so called restricted collections that contain items restricted to either protect confidential or potentially injurious information, or ensure research access, or prevent damage or theft of high-value materials.
while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.
A little red tape might actually help. A measured amount, that is not permitted to be burdensome.
I would suggest requiring that manufacturers ensure their product is sold on the condition that it will only be sold to a licensed pilot or licensed, or registered drone operator.
Operating a drone should require a license involving paying perhaps a $20 fee, and proving completion of a qualifying training course for basic drone operation, and passing a written exam.
The idea is to not keep people out hobbyists or other people who are serious about proper and safe drone operation, BUT selling every mom and pop a drone, is plain irresponsible, until such time as a high margin of safety can be assured (Which it cannot, by current technology).
A nuclear weapon is an effective deterrent. Without them, you can be invaded or can be subject to total war
Also, without the use nuclear weapons, Japan would have torn us up at the end of WWII, many millions more lives would be gone, and today the US would be a conquered nation subservient to the Russian empire.
It was the right decision- even jerks need to be allowed freedom of speech. (And I say that as one of the jerks:-) )
No you mean "Even jerks need to be allowed to restrict other people's free speech".
If registering a trademark, which is an exclusive monopoly on a logo, label or branding, is an expression of "free speech", then we live in the world of 1984, where the government protects your right to free speech by restricting what you can say, the government protects your right to bear arms by passing gun control laws, and the government protects you from enemy nations that want to destroy you, by making sweet deals with them that give them $$$, and sell them firearms, and send them foreign aid, and allow them to better pursue the development of nuclear weapons
On the face of it however..... what seems counterintuitive is the court actually used the first amendment to Rule against Free speech, because they are saying that you can Trademark a disparaging name to prevent other people from using that mark.
Trademark rights are a RESTRICTION on other people's free speech, so ruling that trademarks are allowed, ever, is, in a real sense, an infringement upon free speech.
If I had the choice to enter and leave the prison at will?
Imagine, you go to visit your local public library, and to gain access, you have to pay per page you are allowed to read.
But through an exclusive deal with the reigning Republican majority party;
"You will be allowed to browse an unlimited number of pages from the books of select partners who agree with our
world view and finance our campaigns".
Meanwhile, books such as those from authors opposing the death penalty, favoring gun control, might cost double.
So it is acceptable to you that the destitute of India get ZERO connectivity, as opposed to a free walled garden?
It's obviously not a "Free" walled garden. Whoever is paying the cost of the data is subsidizing those sites out of pocket.
Can you provide a basis for allowing traffic to another provider to be free other than "That provider is financing the ISP in exchange
for unfavorably preferable treatment" ?
I also want to know why they were flying from London and going to Los Angeles, if it was to visit Disney LAND
I do not know the answer, but their plans, dreams, hopes, and desires, are not subject to having to be justified or being argued over by someone else.
If I plan, intend, and want to do X, then "Y is cheaper" is not a reason that I should not do X.
If you ask me, "Why don't you want to do Y instead?" Then my answer can always be "Because I want to do X more!"
Not going to pass up buying the car of my dreams, even if the exact same model car with a different color paint, and lacking the leather seats has a 30% discount off its normal price.
Disney World MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been a cheaper visit for them, but they may have had planned to visit other places or specific things they wanted to visit during their trip.
For all I know, they already visited Disney World, and there are specific things at Disney Land that they wish to see.
upstream providers don't care, they will just forward your email to their abuse contact and call it a day, if they do anything at all.
That is fine. By forwarding, they will have proven they received the message, AND the network in question will be more apt to respond in many cases.
At a later stage of the game when you get your lawyers involved their upstream providers will likely respond, for example, it's not worth their while to fight a lawsuit you can file against the upstream provider about their customer's activities.
This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.
Non-US-citizens don't have a right to free travel in the US, so the use of the list to control entry/exit by non-citizens would be constitutional.
It's unreasonable to block air travel after approving the Visa; however.
Unless there is significant logically valid concern about a specific passenger, the authorities should not be blocking people willy-nilly; However, the authorities need the right to do so when the situation warrants it, in order to do their job.
Nothing breaks because of a harmless port scan and an alert does not provide you with ANY useful information.
This is not true, port scans are not harmless, But they are not an attack in themselves either, there are quasi-legitimate uses, they are often not followed up by malicious activity via the same actor, and the community at large has accepted that they happen routinely, and they are a "lesser evil", like a strange man was seen walking across your front lawn: it is suspicious, but nobody's going to jail for that.
Your ISP is doing nothing and rightly so. It would only suck up resources that can be used elsewhere where they make a real difference
If you report it, they should address it --- it is their responsibility to address abuse of their network, and a port scan is abuse.
I would point out that it is inconsiderate to submit abuse reports about "light or transient issues".
If the OP's operation is not materially damaged by the activity, then it is abusive to be contacting the ISPs every time someone else on the internet farts in your general direction, AND you need a real reason it is damaging NOT related to spurious alert messages from a security program.
So this time report it to appropriate authorities and if they don't take your case
OR push the block on the IP range into the Firewall's routing table as a route to Null0, or to an access-list on the Firewall's upstream router
Most providers summarily shove complaints about portscans and firewall alerts into the trash bin.
The OP needs something material to base a legitimate abuse complaint on, such as logs showing an
actual SSH brute force access attempt, that demonstrates the activity is a malicious attempted intrusion
and not merely some reconnaissance effort, possible false alarm, or "background noise" such as W32/Blaster
traffic from some host still running infected XP.
The authorities DON'T CARE about portscans either, unless the OP has something much more material to investigate, or can prove a crime was committed with serious damage, they generally will not get involved...
It doesn't hurt to report it to the civil authorities, but it's not going to do anything to alleviate OP's situation, either, which is an
"overly chatty" firewall device.
The real issue there is the Firewall and the lack of options to suppress spurious alerts, that should get taken up with the firewall vendor as a software issue.
The OP has been more than patient with them.... Assuming they are full TCP connects (non-spoofable); After complaining 3 times about ongoing abuse... I would definitely consider some internet routing table inspection, Identify their upstream providers, and start contacting the upstreams', after continued persistent scans of one IP. Don't stop politely contacting them to ask for help, until you get permanent resolution.
9 times out of 10.... upstream providers will not turn off their customer, probably 10 times out of 10 for simple port scans, which are considered trivial. The industry does NOT consider a simple port scan equivalent to a DoS or hacking attempt, and Most providers will simply disqualify complaints about portscans.
It's partly the OP's folly in having a security device generating excessive noise, especially about blocked IP addresses.
I understand the OP may be constrained by product selection; However, Null-routing the offending range SHOULD be an option, and if not..... get a proper packet-filtering firewall to put in front of your UTM, or set an access-list entry on the router in front of it.
However, if contacted, the abusing providers' upstream provider will likely forward the abuse reports to their customer.
After you've done your homework in thoroughly documenting and verifiably reporting, and they have failed to resolve, then a few more iterations, and a seriously-harmed party would be getting their lawyers involved anyways.
Probably NOT for a simple portscan however, the offending entities' upstreams might be concerned about it from a risk management perspective and pressure their customer to shape up.
No.... the IQ test as an intelligence test is biased in favor of people with certain experiences, showing lower IQs for Poverty, but only in certain regions, is more evidence against the validity of IQ tests as a measure of fluid intelligence.
Those who are in poverty are less likely to have certain experiences, that does not mean they are less intelligent ---- it means they have different knowledge and different adaptations.
Tech jobs are only one way of using programming skills.
Also, if you advance your computer science knowledge sufficiently enough, you are no longer "just a programmer"
E.g. If you become an expert in machine learning and big data, and the huge body of knowledge in the AI field. Your expertise is not necessarily reproducible by some random guy overseas, even if they are more skilled at programming in general, there is still a problem domain in which they cannot compete against you.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly Oracle really does not care about them, nor the fact that the property management company is being scum.
Residents they are attempting to force out early before lease end should file a petition with the courts for an emergency injunction....
No. Assault rifles are select fire.
They are originally from the manufacturer, but there are people who know how to modify them to clear the restrictions, and my understanding is, the criminals, particularly the bad ones, potentially have the capability to do this type of thing, and the "Expensive and invasive license" is only a hinderance to law-abiding citizens.
An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly.
If they restrict all high-flying drones to licensed drone pilots and low-flying within 5 miles of an airport, within 5 miles of low-flying firefighters or rescue copter/operations, and enforce it vigorously, that basically takes care of all current unreasonable dangers to aircraft from civillians' light drones. I'm more concerned about ISIS being able to modify drones for malicious use.
If I can't fly it in my own backyard, we have a problem.
If this prevents you from flying in your own backyard, then please do start a lawsuit. Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.
Unfortunately, the way the legal system in the US works, nobody else can challenge the action of abuse that infringes a different person's fundamental liberties ---- in a perverse twist, the courts protect the government against challenges by refusing to recognize it as an infringement of my rights: If I can't prove the law actually causes me damage today (And "chilling" my activities is not sufficient, the harm has to already happened and be tangible and provable), then the courts use the concept of "lack of standing", in order to help regulators avoid any possibility of scrutiny over their abuses.
which puts them well out of harm's way when it comes to aircraft.
Unless the drone is carrying a malicious payload; hence the no-fly zone. What they really need to put on them is tamper-resistant measurement instrumentation and logic that will throw an error, and refuse to fully launch, if a "stowaway" is detected, such as an extra device strapped to the drone.
I am imaging some kind of "self test" occurring during launch, and after in the air, before responding to commands, where all instruments are checked for reasonable measurement, and some type of physics test is done near the ground and the air, to confirm the drone is not carrying anything (Such as drugs, weapons, hazardous devices, or other stowaways, such as extra electronics mounted to it), And failure of a test forces limited movement and gradual automatic descent.
And that is how a state becomes a tyranny. Forsaking liberty for security.
And now, there will be more violations (Of the new anti-Drone rule), thus justifying more new stricter and broader laws to hit the offenders with ---- AKA a positive feedback loop.
Not a terrible guess, but we've actually already been there and done that. In the early years, ISPs actually did only carry content from partner companies.
However, things were a bit different way back then.... these were really pre-ISP information services and BBSes, not ISPs.... they were a precursor to the consumer internet, and internet was seen as "the next big thing". The computer-using community was much smaller back then: mostly technology enthusiasts greatly interested in the next big thing: Very Few consumers only dabbling to sell to in order to sustain a business model. Definitely NOT the type of people who just stay on Facebook all day and perhaps some Youtube, Google for schoolwork, and not much else.
The demographics of internet users have now fundamentally changed, so it's potentially possible now that an ISP could sustain a model of providing free service to just people who only want access to FB and Wikipedia.
The change in demographics means, that we could no longer be sure the AOL/MSN/Prodigy model dressed up to a 2016 version, with some Apps added, could not succeed.
I'm basically saying, that the public has different values than what early internet users and technologists value, so they may make different choices, But I still think the open internet is worth preserving, even if your average consumer does not value it or understand what a great thing it is, And that FB, et all, and whatever will come after them, actually do owe their existence to its openness.
As an IT technical admin of a non-public corporation; I will say that many of the cloud features of Windows 10 scare me greatly, and I would have many concerns to address moving forward.
I do not believe it is necessarily justifiable that they block all deployment, but we may add special in-house requirements and restrictions on deployment, as we see necessary.
For example: we may need to take steps to disable or interrupt features considered a risk.
We expect our endpoints to not upload sensitive encryption keys to Microsoft (or partner) servers outside our control.
Good luck, we can't even get registration for guns that routinely kill innocent people
Great work continuing with the fear mongering. We know more about guns than drones, however. If you exclude intentional suicides, there is evidence that countries who have done a total ban on guns have equal or more deaths due to violent crime. Also, they even have gun crime --- remember, Paris is a Gun Free Zone, and, yet they still have more serious, not less-serious incidents, b/c the gun wielders don't feel threatened, and police took more than 2 hours to respond. It's a controversial topic, and many people believe they need guns to defend themselves: when seconds count, the police are hours away, and securing the means to defend yourself without interference or questioning from your government is a fundamental liberty that is among those this country was founded upon.
Also, the concern about registration is, one of distrust of the government safeguarding your privacy: they cannot even keep voter lists with personal addresses from hitting the public internet, And possible future abuses or "suspicion of gun owners" or attempts to shame them.
For example: lists of registered gun owners sometimes fall into the hands of activist organizations, who might use the lists to harass people, or attack people, or burglars who might want to steal from people.
Attend to the privacy issues FIRST, and get good privacy regulation, then we can talk about the possibility of registering certain kinds of firearms.
IMO; it's more important to register who possess and exchanges ammunition. Guns do nothing without efficient and safe ammunition, also, people can make their own guns more easily, and ammunition has a limited shelf life, before it degrades.
Securing the means to your recreational indulgement in fancy experimental toys, and idle curiosity, or desire to play, to the detriment of another person's safety, not so much.
There are people who would be concerned about restrictions on private drone use, But, I believe, not nearly so much, as there are people who insist on having the proper tools to protect themselves and their loved ones.
In other words, it costs about the same to deliver one video or a million wikipedia pages.
You forget that there are Wikipedia pages with pictures and videos on the page.
Facebook's video service is also extremely popular on Facebook; people consume video content on all websites. On some websites, there is more video available ---- presumably, some people like video content and flock to sites that have a larger selection.
But given no choice, they will watch Video on FB.
If the argument is the video media takes precious bandwidth, then to provide a 'light' service block multimedia, Video media and large file downloads, and media streaming, regardless of the provider.
it has costs, and it doesn't make sense for FB to pay for everyone to stream porn videos from Xvideos.com. It does make sense that someone would offer to pay for your "free" access to Wikipedia, but not offer to pay for your Hulu and Girls Gone Wild surfing.
Why does it make sense? Are you making a value judgement that Wikipedia has more useful merit, and streaming Hulu would be a recreational misallocation of bandwidth? Perhaps Hulu will be the next sponsor?
What about accessing a competing social network, and streaming cat videos on Facebook?
We're talking about non-neutral practices regarding ISP services.
It's a dangerous precedent if content providers are allowed to partner with ISPs, because soon the ISPs will seek more partnerships. Eventually, a partnership becomes mandatory
Once enough major websites are accessible for free; people switch services to save money on their "internet" service, and then the open and free internet died that day --- from then on, only billion $$$ megacorporations could become a sponsor and have their website included in the public internet; by the end of the decade, only the few total nerds forking over $1000US a month to remain on the pay internet could see the non-sponsored websites.
Plus libraries and hospitals aren't selling private info to advertisers.
And they're not in the business of selling anything. You can't go to a library and ask for a LIBRARY PREMIUM membership, that includes access to the entire collection.
There's no such thing as library non-members or BASIC members having access to browser only a portion of the works available.
Restrictions only exist in special libraries, such as those of research institutions or research archives that don't allow non-approved members any access at all.
And on special works unique to the library itself, so called restricted collections that contain items restricted to either protect confidential or potentially injurious information, or ensure research access, or prevent damage or theft of high-value materials.
while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.
A little red tape might actually help. A measured amount, that is not permitted to be burdensome.
I would suggest requiring that manufacturers ensure their product is sold on the condition that it will only be sold to a licensed pilot or licensed, or registered drone operator.
Operating a drone should require a license involving paying perhaps a $20 fee, and proving completion of a qualifying training course for basic drone operation, and passing a written exam.
The idea is to not keep people out hobbyists or other people who are serious about proper and safe drone operation, BUT selling every mom and pop a drone, is plain irresponsible, until such time as a high margin of safety can be assured (Which it cannot, by current technology).
A nuclear weapon is an effective deterrent. Without them, you can be invaded or can be subject to total war
Also, without the use nuclear weapons, Japan would have torn us up at the end of WWII, many millions more lives would be gone, and today the US would be a conquered nation subservient to the Russian empire.
It was the right decision- even jerks need to be allowed freedom of speech. (And I say that as one of the jerks :-) )
No you mean "Even jerks need to be allowed to restrict other people's free speech".
If registering a trademark, which is an exclusive monopoly on a logo, label or branding, is an expression of "free speech", then we live in the world of 1984, where the government protects your right to free speech by restricting what you can say, the government protects your right to bear arms by passing gun control laws, and the government protects you from enemy nations that want to destroy you, by making sweet deals with them that give them $$$, and sell them firearms, and send them foreign aid, and allow them to better pursue the development of nuclear weapons
On the face of it however..... what seems counterintuitive is the court actually used the first amendment to Rule against Free speech, because they are saying that you can Trademark a disparaging name to prevent other people from using that mark.
Trademark rights are a RESTRICTION on other people's free speech, so ruling that trademarks are allowed, ever, is, in a real sense, an infringement upon free speech.
If I had the choice to enter and leave the prison at will?
Imagine, you go to visit your local public library, and to gain access, you have to pay per page you are allowed to read.
But through an exclusive deal with the reigning Republican majority party; "You will be allowed to browse an unlimited number of pages from the books of select partners who agree with our world view and finance our campaigns".
Meanwhile, books such as those from authors opposing the death penalty, favoring gun control, might cost double.
So it is acceptable to you that the destitute of India get ZERO connectivity, as opposed to a free walled garden?
It's obviously not a "Free" walled garden. Whoever is paying the cost of the data is subsidizing those sites out of pocket.
Can you provide a basis for allowing traffic to another provider to be free other than "That provider is financing the ISP in exchange for unfavorably preferable treatment" ?
I also want to know why they were flying from London and going to Los Angeles, if it was to visit Disney LAND
I do not know the answer, but their plans, dreams, hopes, and desires, are not subject to having to be justified or being argued over by someone else.
If I plan, intend, and want to do X, then "Y is cheaper" is not a reason that I should not do X. If you ask me, "Why don't you want to do Y instead?" Then my answer can always be "Because I want to do X more!"
Not going to pass up buying the car of my dreams, even if the exact same model car with a different color paint, and lacking the leather seats has a 30% discount off its normal price.
Disney World MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been a cheaper visit for them, but they may have had planned to visit other places or specific things they wanted to visit during their trip.
For all I know, they already visited Disney World, and there are specific things at Disney Land that they wish to see.
upstream providers don't care, they will just forward your email to their abuse contact and call it a day, if they do anything at all.
That is fine. By forwarding, they will have proven they received the message, AND the network in question will be more apt to respond in many cases.
At a later stage of the game when you get your lawyers involved their upstream providers will likely respond, for example, it's not worth their while to fight a lawsuit you can file against the upstream provider about their customer's activities.
This is not about visa travel. This is about the unconstitutional DHS no-fly checks.
Non-US-citizens don't have a right to free travel in the US, so the use of the list to control entry/exit by non-citizens would be constitutional.
It's unreasonable to block air travel after approving the Visa; however. Unless there is significant logically valid concern about a specific passenger, the authorities should not be blocking people willy-nilly; However, the authorities need the right to do so when the situation warrants it, in order to do their job.
Nothing breaks because of a harmless port scan and an alert does not provide you with ANY useful information.
This is not true, port scans are not harmless, But they are not an attack in themselves either, there are quasi-legitimate uses, they are often not followed up by malicious activity via the same actor, and the community at large has accepted that they happen routinely, and they are a "lesser evil", like a strange man was seen walking across your front lawn: it is suspicious, but nobody's going to jail for that.
Your ISP is doing nothing and rightly so. It would only suck up resources that can be used elsewhere where they make a real difference
If you report it, they should address it --- it is their responsibility to address abuse of their network, and a port scan is abuse.
I would point out that it is inconsiderate to submit abuse reports about "light or transient issues". If the OP's operation is not materially damaged by the activity, then it is abusive to be contacting the ISPs every time someone else on the internet farts in your general direction, AND you need a real reason it is damaging NOT related to spurious alert messages from a security program.
So this time report it to appropriate authorities and if they don't take your case
OR push the block on the IP range into the Firewall's routing table as a route to Null0, or to an access-list on the Firewall's upstream router
Most providers summarily shove complaints about portscans and firewall alerts into the trash bin. The OP needs something material to base a legitimate abuse complaint on, such as logs showing an actual SSH brute force access attempt, that demonstrates the activity is a malicious attempted intrusion and not merely some reconnaissance effort, possible false alarm, or "background noise" such as W32/Blaster traffic from some host still running infected XP.
The authorities DON'T CARE about portscans either, unless the OP has something much more material to investigate, or can prove a crime was committed with serious damage, they generally will not get involved... It doesn't hurt to report it to the civil authorities, but it's not going to do anything to alleviate OP's situation, either, which is an "overly chatty" firewall device.
The real issue there is the Firewall and the lack of options to suppress spurious alerts, that should get taken up with the firewall vendor as a software issue.
The OP has been more than patient with them.... Assuming they are full TCP connects (non-spoofable); After complaining 3 times about ongoing abuse... I would definitely consider some internet routing table inspection, Identify their upstream providers, and start contacting the upstreams', after continued persistent scans of one IP. Don't stop politely contacting them to ask for help, until you get permanent resolution.
9 times out of 10.... upstream providers will not turn off their customer, probably 10 times out of 10 for simple port scans, which are considered trivial. The industry does NOT consider a simple port scan equivalent to a DoS or hacking attempt, and Most providers will simply disqualify complaints about portscans.
It's partly the OP's folly in having a security device generating excessive noise, especially about blocked IP addresses. I understand the OP may be constrained by product selection; However, Null-routing the offending range SHOULD be an option, and if not..... get a proper packet-filtering firewall to put in front of your UTM, or set an access-list entry on the router in front of it.
However, if contacted, the abusing providers' upstream provider will likely forward the abuse reports to their customer.
After you've done your homework in thoroughly documenting and verifiably reporting, and they have failed to resolve, then a few more iterations, and a seriously-harmed party would be getting their lawyers involved anyways. Probably NOT for a simple portscan however, the offending entities' upstreams might be concerned about it from a risk management perspective and pressure their customer to shape up.
Poverty Stunts IQ In the US
No.... the IQ test as an intelligence test is biased in favor of people with certain experiences, showing lower IQs for Poverty, but only in certain regions, is more evidence against the validity of IQ tests as a measure of fluid intelligence.
Those who are in poverty are less likely to have certain experiences, that does not mean they are less intelligent ---- it means they have different knowledge and different adaptations.
Tech jobs are only one way of using programming skills.
Also, if you advance your computer science knowledge sufficiently enough, you are no longer "just a programmer"
E.g. If you become an expert in machine learning and big data, and the huge body of knowledge in the AI field. Your expertise is not necessarily reproducible by some random guy overseas, even if they are more skilled at programming in general, there is still a problem domain in which they cannot compete against you.