Intentionally downing or failing to do either operate the RWHOIS server 24x7 or provide the re-assignments using SWIP is a NRPM violation, and therefore a breach of the RSA contract the provider signed with ARIN.
If they are found out, their IP resources subject to the RSA can be revoked immediately...
In reality, they might get off with a stern warning, but it seems like a really risky practice.
Personally, I think you should have to register to see entries in the WHOIS directory, pay a $5 fee, and obtain a login and password to authenticate.
You yourself will be listed in the WHOIS directory as a whois user, with full details.
And any lookups you perform will become public knowledge for the next 7 days, together with the IP address(es) performing the lookup, and what records you looked up.
In other words... public information, but also public record of who is accessing that information.
A "venomous message" is not network abuse in the traditional sense, although it still may result in account termination (especially if the ISP is a university or employer of the sender), most commercial ISPs will not or cannot do anything about a complaint of a venomous message. Although they may have an AUP that message content violates, support personnel cannot readily make a determination whether a single message constitutes legal harassment or not, and whether the claimed sender really sent that text or not.
It will often be the complainer's responsibility to contact law enforcement, or secure a restraining order.
Network abuse would be sending 10 copies of a venomous message, in order to flood recipient's inbox, which is verifiable by the ISP.
If it's just a few messages, ISPs will generally direct the recipient as to how to filter, block, or.killfile further messages from that sender.
Consider that another type of harassment ISPs have to deal with or be concerned with in situations like that, is frivolous complaints constructed by the perpetrator in order to harass the victim by suggesting they may get their ISP service terminated (through the false complaints).
Real question because I don't honestly know: how much spam is actually sent from people with registered domain names who own blocks of IP addresses? How does this number compare to the spam sent from compromised Windows machines that participate in various botnets? If the latter is a much larger source, then this looks more like another ineffective feel-good measure.
You realize, these are not disjoint sets?
There are a lot of Windows machines on the networks of companies that hold IP addresses.
These are business networks, and often they are a source of spam.
Often other people need to contact them to give them a friendly alert that some of their machines are sending spam, so they can deal with the infection.
Often residential users who are not on business networks with their own IP addresses, have ISPs that block or filter port 25.
Basically, if you have your own IP addresses, and your own network, then you have a responsibility to be contactable so you can mitigate abuse.
If you are a single user without IP addresses of your own, then your ISP is your network manager (to an extent, obviously they won't come to your house and clean the infection for you, and it's not ISP support's job to walk you through cleaning or fixing your infections, either, although some ISPs will offer this service, probably at substantial additional cost).
A license plate is an indexed key. To actually obtain the data associated with the key, you have to be in a position of authority (e.g. a police officer).
At one point in time that might have been correct.
It is no longer true. There are plenty of back channels where a person not in a "position of authority" can very easily get the information indexed to the key, pretty reliably.
Should the contact info of a corporation that has 16 or more public IPv4 IP addresses really be considered private?
What is the value in protecting "privacy" of a corporation's identity, and allowing them to use a public shared resource for profit privately without revealing their identity?
Typically there is no more info about a company in a WHOIS listing than can be found through other public records, such as corporate charters, Yellow pages, advertisements.
You have your medical condition and contact info listed on your MedicAlert bracelet. What's wrong with that?
A Medic...what??? Of course I do not.
You have your name, address, bank account number and signature on any cheques you write. What's wrong with that?
I have only name, bank account number, and issuing bank. No need for an address on a cheque, that's a security risk.
Also, don't write checks.... paper checks are a security risk, because they are easily forged, and should be kept locked up at all times and not used on a regular basis.
You have an address on the door to your place that's publicly viewable. What's the problem with that?
Some people do. Some people do not have an address printed on the door.
You have a face that's publicly viewable when you go on the street - and you don't have the right to wear a mask to hide it, What's the problem with that?
Huh? Of course you do. Although it may be at your peril
Then use a subdomain on a responsible person's SLD registration.
Proper contact information really is a requirement for registering a domain name.
"Domain by proxy" services are sneaky, the practice should be banned, for among other reasons (due to the fact) that the proxy service is officially the legal owner of the domain name, as far as the internet domain registry is concerned.
It occurs that the privacy of IP information should make sending DMCA letters to an accurate contact based on IP address almost impossible (eventually)
And since the upstream has kept the ISP's information private, to prevent other providers from seeking their contact details, the Cop is going to have a very fun time.
Suppose the user was not a subscriber to a Tier 1 ISP.
Then there could be 3 or 4 levels of re-assignment involved, all private.
For example, the user subscribes to Mom and Pop ISP who buys data service from Xyz Co, who is a local exchange or local provider of data services in a very small region.
Said local provider buys all their internet service from Bigger Regional provider.
Finally, Bigger Regional provider buys all their transit service from UUnet.
Since none of the other ISPs are particularly large, and none multihomed, possibly none of them have an AS number, except UUnet.
Cops will find "UUnet" as the only listed owner of the IPs.
They will call UUnet and spend a few hours on the phone figuring out what regional provider the IPs belong to.
Then they get to call the regional provider and spend a few hours on the phone figuring out what local city data provider the IP address belongs to, and what their contact info is.
By the time they have gotten that info, it's off-hours, they try to call, but they are closed (small provider, no 24x7 administrative contact for the cops to call)
Next day, they call local city provider, to figure out small ISP's contact details.
Only takes a few hours of the provider wading through paperwork to research that question and (hopefully) give an accurate answer.
Next day, they call Mom and Pop ISP, only to find, their records are in complete disarray, and they have no record or immediate way to identify what subscriber the IP belongs to.
If it was a dynamic IP, perhaps they only kept the record for a few hours, the info needed is long gone.
Almost correct... ARIN does not need IP addresses or contact data to be published for residential dial-in users, provided they are not assigned a/29 (or shorter prefix)
Currently a/29 is the magic number.
If you get a netblock that is larger, such as a netblock with 16, 32, 64, 256, or more contiguous IP address numbers, then the upstream provider has to publish re-assignment information and a contact.
Anyone with enough spare cash lying around to pick up an iPad and pay the monthly plan fees, probably won't notice the $1 extra cost enough to even shrug their sholders.
A Captcha for new book submission from PoD publishers.
And protection against keyword spamming.
Perhaps Google could give them some pointers?
All web search engines used to be plagued by this crap. I suppose it was only a matter of time before advanced bot technology would be used to taint more traditional media.
Well, if one twin can account for their time, as they have, and the other cannot account for their time, then by the law of excluded middle, the other twin must have committed the crime.
That is if it's proven person A or person B committed the crime, and it's proven that person A could not have committed the crime, then it has logically been proven that person B committed the crime.
The same basic right exists in the UK, they call it the right to silence, or the right to remain silent, and it comes from the Judges' Rules, and pertains to rights of the defendant to not testify, and rights to not cooperate with police.
Arguably, potential criminals may have better rights there than in the US, in certain areas.
The 5th amendment of the US constitution is based on it.
Why do mitochondrial DNA testing? The twins would share that DNA too, doesn't make much sense to test it, right?
They might share it.
There's always the possibility of one twin or the other having a genetic anomoly since birth that would distinguish them
Re:Or maybe the police could do their jobs!
on
Twins' DNA Foils Police
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Another possibility would be to examine both people's alibi.
Trying to hold 2 people for 1 peron's crime is just lazy.
Presumably one of them can't properly account for their whereabouts at the time of the crime.
One of their alibis' has got to have a hole in it (unless a 'third' mysterious twin did it)
At least one twin is lying, and possibly a friend covering their alibi is lying.
They couldn't have both really been watching their daughter that night.
Unless one of them that committed the crime took their daughter with them, that is.
It is doubtful both twins wear exactly the same clothing, same vehicle type, and other things, so perhaps if there was some sort of trace evidence left at the scene, they could be fingered.....
At a shopping center, there should be at least one witness, unless this was an inside job done while it was closed.
I also would not neglect the possibility that both twins were involved in the crime.
If both twins were involved, they could have both planned to point to the other twin and make sure there was not enough evidence to incriminate either of them.
In this manner, committing the perfect crime in plain sight.
I assume the police actually did both nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA testing on both twins, and other analysis of blood content?
Or maybe not.
Even identical twins don't necessarily eat the same things.
The criminal has some different behaviors / different tastes, that they ought to be able to find evidence of.
They could probably analyze behavior and figure out which one is actually capable of committing the crime that happened
If they are really innocent, then there is a good chance they will be able to prove it long before 30 years has elapsed.
Personally, I believe any prisoner sentenced to a long term should be given a euthanasia option after a few years as an alternative to spending the next 30 years of their life as a caged animal.
I consider long term imprisonment to be cruel and unusual punishment.
The type our constitution is supposed to protect against.
Limited term imprisonment, forced labor, and many forms of execution are more humane.
Slashdot Mirror
Intentionally downing or failing to do either operate the RWHOIS server 24x7 or provide the re-assignments using SWIP is a NRPM violation, and therefore a breach of the RSA contract the provider signed with ARIN.
If they are found out, their IP resources subject to the RSA can be revoked immediately...
In reality, they might get off with a stern warning, but it seems like a really risky practice.
Personally, I think you should have to register to see entries in the WHOIS directory, pay a $5 fee, and obtain a login and password to authenticate. You yourself will be listed in the WHOIS directory as a whois user, with full details.
And any lookups you perform will become public knowledge for the next 7 days, together with the IP address(es) performing the lookup, and what records you looked up.
In other words... public information, but also public record of who is accessing that information.
A "venomous message" is not network abuse in the traditional sense, although it still may result in account termination (especially if the ISP is a university or employer of the sender), most commercial ISPs will not or cannot do anything about a complaint of a venomous message. Although they may have an AUP that message content violates, support personnel cannot readily make a determination whether a single message constitutes legal harassment or not, and whether the claimed sender really sent that text or not.
It will often be the complainer's responsibility to contact law enforcement, or secure a restraining order.
Network abuse would be sending 10 copies of a venomous message, in order to flood recipient's inbox, which is verifiable by the ISP.
If it's just a few messages, ISPs will generally direct the recipient as to how to filter, block, or .killfile further messages from that sender.
Consider that another type of harassment ISPs have to deal with or be concerned with in situations like that, is frivolous complaints constructed by the perpetrator in order to harass the victim by suggesting they may get their ISP service terminated (through the false complaints).
Real question because I don't honestly know: how much spam is actually sent from people with registered domain names who own blocks of IP addresses? How does this number compare to the spam sent from compromised Windows machines that participate in various botnets? If the latter is a much larger source, then this looks more like another ineffective feel-good measure.
You realize, these are not disjoint sets?
There are a lot of Windows machines on the networks of companies that hold IP addresses.
These are business networks, and often they are a source of spam. Often other people need to contact them to give them a friendly alert that some of their machines are sending spam, so they can deal with the infection.
Often residential users who are not on business networks with their own IP addresses, have ISPs that block or filter port 25.
Basically, if you have your own IP addresses, and your own network, then you have a responsibility to be contactable so you can mitigate abuse.
If you are a single user without IP addresses of your own, then your ISP is your network manager (to an extent, obviously they won't come to your house and clean the infection for you, and it's not ISP support's job to walk you through cleaning or fixing your infections, either, although some ISPs will offer this service, probably at substantial additional cost).
A license plate is an indexed key. To actually obtain the data associated with the key, you have to be in a position of authority (e.g. a police officer).
At one point in time that might have been correct.
It is no longer true. There are plenty of back channels where a person not in a "position of authority" can very easily get the information indexed to the key, pretty reliably.
Should the contact info of a corporation that has 16 or more public IPv4 IP addresses really be considered private?
What is the value in protecting "privacy" of a corporation's identity, and allowing them to use a public shared resource for profit privately without revealing their identity?
Typically there is no more info about a company in a WHOIS listing than can be found through other public records, such as corporate charters, Yellow pages, advertisements.
You have your medical condition and contact info listed on your MedicAlert bracelet. What's wrong with that?
A Medic...what??? Of course I do not.
You have your name, address, bank account number and signature on any cheques you write. What's wrong with that?
I have only name, bank account number, and issuing bank. No need for an address on a cheque, that's a security risk.
Also, don't write checks.... paper checks are a security risk, because they are easily forged, and should be kept locked up at all times and not used on a regular basis.
You have an address on the door to your place that's publicly viewable. What's the problem with that?
Some people do. Some people do not have an address printed on the door.
You have a face that's publicly viewable when you go on the street - and you don't have the right to wear a mask to hide it, What's the problem with that?
Huh? Of course you do. Although it may be at your peril
Then use a subdomain on a responsible person's SLD registration.
Proper contact information really is a requirement for registering a domain name.
"Domain by proxy" services are sneaky, the practice should be banned, for among other reasons (due to the fact) that the proxy service is officially the legal owner of the domain name, as far as the internet domain registry is concerned.
It occurs that the privacy of IP information should make sending DMCA letters to an accurate contact based on IP address almost impossible (eventually)
Cop identifies IP.
And since the upstream has kept the ISP's information private, to prevent other providers from seeking their contact details, the Cop is going to have a very fun time.
Suppose the user was not a subscriber to a Tier 1 ISP.
Then there could be 3 or 4 levels of re-assignment involved, all private.
For example, the user subscribes to Mom and Pop ISP who buys data service from Xyz Co, who is a local exchange or local provider of data services in a very small region.
Said local provider buys all their internet service from Bigger Regional provider.
Finally, Bigger Regional provider buys all their transit service from UUnet.
Since none of the other ISPs are particularly large, and none multihomed, possibly none of them have an AS number, except UUnet.
Cops will find "UUnet" as the only listed owner of the IPs.
They will call UUnet and spend a few hours on the phone figuring out what regional provider the IPs belong to.
Then they get to call the regional provider and spend a few hours on the phone figuring out what local city data provider the IP address belongs to, and what their contact info is.
By the time they have gotten that info, it's off-hours, they try to call, but they are closed (small provider, no 24x7 administrative contact for the cops to call)
Next day, they call local city provider, to figure out small ISP's contact details. Only takes a few hours of the provider wading through paperwork to research that question and (hopefully) give an accurate answer.
Next day, they call Mom and Pop ISP, only to find, their records are in complete disarray, and they have no record or immediate way to identify what subscriber the IP belongs to.
If it was a dynamic IP, perhaps they only kept the record for a few hours, the info needed is long gone.
Almost correct... ARIN does not need IP addresses or contact data to be published for residential dial-in users, provided they are not assigned a /29 (or shorter prefix)
Currently a /29 is the magic number.
If you get a netblock that is larger, such as a netblock with 16, 32, 64, 256, or more contiguous IP address numbers, then the upstream provider has to publish re-assignment information and a contact.
Please see this handy link.
Satan = Gates
....
Beelzebub = Murdoch
Leviathan = Balmer
Asmodeus = Darl McBride
Berith = Osama
Anyone with enough spare cash lying around to pick up an iPad and pay the monthly plan fees, probably won't notice the $1 extra cost enough to even shrug their sholders.
They'll probably buy both, for a total of $6.99
Rupert's company knows about robots.txt. See, they allow everything.
And Foxnews is even kind enough to provide sitemaps targeted at facilitating Google
Rupert's mantra should probably be listen to what I say, (pay no attention to what I do)
No, it's like an Endorsement from Beelzebub.
The CEO of Microsoft didn't endorse it, at least not yet, that I know of.
The typographers are gonna want a cut too.
So will the company that made the font the book was printed with.
So will the company that manufactured the paper the book was scanned from.
So will the company that manufactured the scanner.
The company that manufactured the USB cable the scanner was plugged in with would like a cut too.
And the company that manufactured the USB port on the computer.
The musicians are gonna want a cut when Google scans a music book.
The coders are gonna want a cut when Google scans a programming book.
When a book contains maps, the cartographers and explorers will want a cut also.
The author of the typesetting software's gonna want a cut too.
By the time this is all done, it's going to cost Google more to make a book available, than the price people will be able to pay to see it.
The kindle is not a tablet computer like the iPad that promises the ability to run applications.
The kindle is a dedicated device only advertised as a dedicated book reader.
TVs, Printers, and Toasters are locked down too, but again, they don't advertise the ability to run applications.
A Captcha for new book submission from PoD publishers.
And protection against keyword spamming.
Perhaps Google could give them some pointers?
All web search engines used to be plagued by this crap. I suppose it was only a matter of time before advanced bot technology would be used to taint more traditional media.
Well, if one twin can account for their time, as they have, and the other cannot account for their time, then by the law of excluded middle, the other twin must have committed the crime.
That is if it's proven person A or person B committed the crime, and it's proven that person A could not have committed the crime, then it has logically been proven that person B committed the crime.
The same basic right exists in the UK, they call it the right to silence, or the right to remain silent, and it comes from the Judges' Rules, and pertains to rights of the defendant to not testify, and rights to not cooperate with police.
Arguably, potential criminals may have better rights there than in the US, in certain areas.
The 5th amendment of the US constitution is based on it.
But see the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, PACE Code C.
Why do mitochondrial DNA testing? The twins would share that DNA too, doesn't make much sense to test it, right?
They might share it.
There's always the possibility of one twin or the other having a genetic anomoly since birth that would distinguish them
Another possibility would be to examine both people's alibi.
Trying to hold 2 people for 1 peron's crime is just lazy.
Presumably one of them can't properly account for their whereabouts at the time of the crime. One of their alibis' has got to have a hole in it (unless a 'third' mysterious twin did it)
At least one twin is lying, and possibly a friend covering their alibi is lying. They couldn't have both really been watching their daughter that night.
Unless one of them that committed the crime took their daughter with them, that is. It is doubtful both twins wear exactly the same clothing, same vehicle type, and other things, so perhaps if there was some sort of trace evidence left at the scene, they could be fingered..... At a shopping center, there should be at least one witness, unless this was an inside job done while it was closed.
I also would not neglect the possibility that both twins were involved in the crime.
If both twins were involved, they could have both planned to point to the other twin and make sure there was not enough evidence to incriminate either of them. In this manner, committing the perfect crime in plain sight.
I assume the police actually did both nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA testing on both twins, and other analysis of blood content?
Or maybe not.
Even identical twins don't necessarily eat the same things. The criminal has some different behaviors / different tastes, that they ought to be able to find evidence of.
They could probably analyze behavior and figure out which one is actually capable of committing the crime that happened
It's called unlawful arrest. It's not legal to hold someone in contempt of court who is not a witness.
It is unconstitutional (5th amendment violation) to demand someone confess.
If they are really innocent, then there is a good chance they will be able to prove it long before 30 years has elapsed.
Personally, I believe any prisoner sentenced to a long term should be given a euthanasia option after a few years as an alternative to spending the next 30 years of their life as a caged animal.
I consider long term imprisonment to be cruel and unusual punishment. The type our constitution is supposed to protect against.
Limited term imprisonment, forced labor, and many forms of execution are more humane.
The sad thing is the bar has fallen so low nowadays, it's no joke.
It's reality. It's common. In fact, I dare say pervasive.
Maybe it's an even bigger joke that it's real as in easily believable that many managers would say something like that at many companies?