ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 00:58:46 CDT 2009


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Deepak Jain<deepak at ai.net> wrote:
> What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off?

I hate to re-start the atrivo/intercage/mccolo thread(s) but, often
what happens is there just arent any real/usable complaints sent along
to the upstream providers.

The webhost (aps/3fn in this case) may have avoided most/many of the
complaints, over the years, being sent to their upstream(s) or they
may have successfully shuffled their links faster than outages could
be arranged. If address blocks or customers are shuffled fast enough,
or timely enough, it looks like the problem is resolved to an
upstream. One trick I've seen used is to re-announce address blocks
out differing interfaces such that providers catalog the complaints
not against the direct customer but against peers or other customers
'innocents' (possibly).

If the upstream providers don't get quality complaints in a format
they can use and catalog... nothing is going to change. If the
upstreams see no abuse record there is no reason to term a paying
customer.

With the more criminally minded 'customers', the problem is a lot
harder to bring to resolution if you are stuck inside the
contracts/laws of your jurisdiction. It behooves the community at
large to properly catalog and properly complain about these sorts of
things. Saying: "dirty-webhost-X is never going to deal with my
complaints so, I stopped sending them there X  months|years ago." is
not going to resolve the issue(s).  Email to [email protected] is 'free' for the
sender, almost all complaint generation systems can be automated,
almost all complaint acceptance systems can be as well if the
complaints come in well formed and with the right information
included.

-Chris

> The AUP standard is usually written much, much lower.
>
> Deepak
>
> Deepak
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at merit.edu>
> Sent: Fri Jun 05 00:38:04 2009
> Subject: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/06/ftc_sues_shuts_down_n_calif_we.html
>
> while allegedly a black hat, this is the first case i know of in which
> the usg has shut down an isp.  nose of camel?  first they came for ...
>
> randy
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list