net.terrorism

Tue Jan 9 18:34:26 UTC 2001

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001, John Belcher wrote:

> >I can live with the fact that they don't route that traffic. But they
> >should not tell me that they will...
> 
> Did they specifically state that they would announce the particular host in
> question, or just the netblock itself?  Because the two are very different.
> If you are unhappy with abovenet's policies you should switch providers, and
> you should not bring issues like this on a public forum...
> 
> >Forgive my arrogancy but I don't need "relevant literature" for an ethical
> >question like this.
> 
> How exactly is this an ethical question?  Did you not read your terms of
> agreement with abovenet?  I'm sorry to say but this is your problem to deal
> with, not abovenet's.

[snip]

> What abovenet has done is not unlawful, all they have done is uphold their
> policies concerning networks they believe to be harmful, and they have not
> threatened force or *or* violence.  Making allegations of terrorism is a
> very serious thing, and you could get yourself into trouble making them
> publicly.

The question here is whether above.net are within their rights to enforce
their AUP upon non-customers. vuurwerk aren't a customer. vuurwerk are
a customer of uunet, not above.net . Now, if above.net are filtering
someone's network who isn't a directly connected customer, that doesn't
come across as "simply enforcing their AUP."

I'm reading what I found at http://www.above.net/services/aug.html and
it mentions "Abovenet Customers". If someone at above.net wants to
point me at another document which covers their arragement with uunet,
and whether they've contacted uunet or not, I'll concede.

Yes, its above.net's network. They can do what they want. But guys, the
box in question isn't at an _above.net customer_. Think about this before
you think Sabri is smoking crack.

Adrian

-- 
Adrian Chadd			"Sex Change: a simple job of outside 
<adrian at creative.net.au>	  to inside plumbing."
				    - Some random movie