Nxdomain redirect revenue

William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Tue Sep 27 14:20:25 UTC 2011

On 9/27/11 7:50 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:57 AM, William Allen Simpson
> <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com>  wrote:
> [snip]
>> Certainly, hijacking google.com NS records to JOMAX.NET would be a
>> criminal interference.  After all, that's all DNSsec signed now,
>> isn't it?
> I would rather see DNSSEC  and TLS/HTTPS get implemented end to end.

They are.

> The last thing we need is a court to step in and say "It's not legal
> for an ISP to
> blacklist, block, or redirect traffic,  to any hostname or IP address."
Don't distort my words.  It amuses me when so-called conservative
cyber-libertarians hate the idea of courts stepping in to enforce
laws, except the laws governing their own contracts enforcing
payments regardless of the quality of their goods.

The cable and satellite industry forced through digital protection
acts -- to protect their revenue streams.  Now, it's time to use
those acts against them.

It's not legal for an ISP to modify computer data.  Especially
digitally signed data.  That's a criminal offense.

It's not legal for a vendor to sell or give away equipment that aids
interception and modification of data.  That's a criminal offense.

> Most likely the ISPs'  lawyers were smart enough to include a clause
> in the ToS/AUP allowing
> the ISP to intercept, blackhole, or redirect access to any hostname or
> IP address.
It's not legal to insert a clause allowing criminal conduct.  There's
no safe haven for criminal conduct.

> The name for an ISP intercepting traffic from its own users is  not
> "interference"  or  "DoS",
> because they're breaking the operation of (er) only their own network.
No, they're breaking the operation of my network and my computers.  My
network connects to their network.

> The solution is to spread their name as widely as possible, so
> consumers can make an informed
> choice if they wish to avoid service providers that engage in abusive practices,
> and bring it attention to regulators if the service providers are
> acting as an abusive monopoly in regards to their interception
> practices.
There are no choices.  They *are* abusive monopolies.

Why are "regulators" better than courts?

After all, the regulators will also involve courts.

More information about the NANOG mailing list