botnets world and the FBI

Tue Jun 1 21:56:05 UTC 2004

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:06:20 EDT, "Jamie C.Pole" said:
> Because academics know EVERYTHING.

What's that got to do with anything?  (or are you making the rather rash and
all-too-common generalization that everybody who posts from a .edu is an
academic?  Surprise - at least some sites are clued enough to keep academics in
the classroom and lab, and hire people who know something about production
environments to run the network and the big servers....)

> Let's not talk about the links between financial fraud, drugs, and 
> terrorism.  Of course they're related...

Right... my point is that "e-crime" is a *symptom* of the others - you won't
be able to do anything about e-crime until the *root* problem (fraud/drugs/terrorism)
is dealt with.

We have had enough ill-defined 'War on Election-Year-Buzzwords' (terrorism,
drugs, organized crime, illiteracy, poverty - the wars on Communism and
Inflation seem to have evaporated.  I've probably missed a few...).  And we
seem to do a very poor job of ever asking *why* people decide to blow us up, or
do drugs, or be poor/homeless.  I don't see any reason why we'd do any better
with e-crime.....

And even if E-crime *is* a separate war we need to declare, where will we get
the resources from?  Our military has long had a policy regarding the troop
strength we need, and bases it on a "We can handle 3 small conflicts, or 1
large and one small, and we need to avoid being in 2 major conflicts at once"
type of ruleset.  Take a look how many billions of dollars a month we're
collectively hemorrhaging in Iraq, and ask what we'll trim to fight e-crime.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040601/983d486b/attachment.sig>