North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
- From: Vadim Antonov
- Date: Sat Aug 17 18:10:35 2002
On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Am I the only one who finds it odd that it's illegal to export crypto
> or "supercomputers" to certain nations or to sell such goods with
> prior knowledge that the goods are going to be resold in those
> nations... or even to travel to certain nations... yet no law
> prohibits establishing a link and a BGP session to ISP's within those
> nations, or to ISP's who are known to have links and BGP sessions to
> ISP's within those nations?
Well... it is not always legal. The "trade with the enemy" act may
prohibit ISPs from connecting with countries on the list. In the old
times I had a discussion on the subject with Steve Goldstein (regarding
> I'm not sure I'd be opposed to it, since economic blockades do appear
> to have some effect, and since data is a valuable import/export
> commodity. I think homeland security is a good thing if it means a
> mandate for IPsec, DNSSEC, edge RPF, etc... but if we *mean* it, then
> why are US packets able to reach ISP's in hostile nations?
This is silly, because:
a) no one can deny connectivity to "bad guys". You can merely create a
minor annoyance to them, in form of having to use a proxy somewhere in
b) all you can really achieve is to restrict access for their populace;
effectively making the job of "bad guys" easier (hint: governments in
non-friendly countries do agressive filtering of access to Western
It is a known phenomenon that given the Western cultural dominance in the
net, it is one of the best pro-Western propaganda tools around. Propaganda
(in the right direction) is good, because if you can convince someone to
come to your side, you don't have to kill him to prevail.
I can only hope that H.S. Dept will see it this way.
> I want to know what the homeland security department is likely to do
> about all this, not what is good/bad for the citizens of hostile
> nations or even nonhostile nations.
Likely nothing, unless they are complete incompetents. The point is:
there's no feasible way to achieve any gains by restricting access on
It is a lot more useful to suppress the enemy propaganda by going after
its sources which are easily located. I would suggest going after CNN
first [sarcasm implied].