×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

After Links To Cybercrime, Latvian ISP Cut Off

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the people-interpret-jerks-as-damage-and-route-around-them dept.

The Internet 116

alphadogg writes with this Network World story, excerpting "A Latvian ISP linked to online criminal activity has been cut off from the Internet, following complaints from Internet security researchers. Real Host, based in Riga, Latvia was thought to control command-and-control servers for infected botnet PCs, and had been linked to phishing sites, Web sites that launched attack code at visitors and were also home to malicious 'rogue' antivirus products, according to a researcher using the pseudonym Jart Armin, who works on the Hostexploit.com Web site. 'This is maybe one of the top European centers of crap,' he said in an e-mail interview. 'It was a cesspool of criminal activity,' said Paul Ferguson, a researcher with Trend Micro."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

They'll move elsewhere (5, Interesting)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969363)

The questions that should be asked is "Are they closing in on the criminals who set up these sites?"

Surely with all the information they can get from this rogue ISP they can track down the wankers who run them.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (5, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969463)

Probably not. The ISP in question, Real Host, appears to have only had a single upstream to the Internet via the Scandinavia ISP TeliaSonera and it was TeliaSonera being threatened with sanctions if they continued to provide connectivity to Real Host that resulted in the disconnection. Chances are that the operators behind Real Host (there is evidence to suggest at least some are ex-RBN staffers) are looking for other ISPs to provide them connectivity at this moment and Real Host with be coming to an Internet Sewer near you Real Soon.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (4, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969835)

Actually, what happened was that Real Host was getting its connection from Junik which in turn gets its upstream from TeliaSonera and TeliaSonera pressured Junik into cutting off Real Host.

/Mikael

Re:They'll move elsewhere (3, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970059)

Yep, my mistake. TeliaSonera was threatening Junik with sanctions if they didn't cut Real Host off. That's what happens when you go from memories of a late night... There's some more background info on the Zeus trojan that Real Host was running the C&C servers for, including a rather incriminating AS map, over at HostExploit [hostexploit.com]. Given the nature of the last couple of hops and liklihood of some RBN involvement, I'm actually inclined to believe that Junik is either a front or is seriously in someone's pocket...

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28970187)

The real question: is all of this gumshoe shit really easier than just fixing/securing Windows?

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972951)

"If we just made houses more secure, we'd never have to worry about burglary!!"

There will always be cybercrime, and these days a lot of it involves duping users rather than computers.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28973047)

Anything that can be made can also be broken. I don't think it matters how well we THINK any OS is secured, someone will find something about it they can exploit anyway.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969473)

Thing is rogue antivirus products and such isn't exactly illegal. In USA it can count as misleading advertisement but as we know USA laws dont apply everywhere. This case also is not police investigation, but their upstream provider TeliaSonera just cut them off because it made them look bad.

We demand net neutrality for pirates and defend laws of other countries. Now botnets and phishing are really bad, but instead of getting to root of the problem these security researchers are purposely destroying net neutrality. TeliaSonera is also upstream provider for The Pirate Bay so they could just suddenly cut TPB's access to the internet. Then everyone would be saying how they're legal in Sweden and they should not be allowed to do that. Well, its the same issue here.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (2, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969579)

Net neutrality is about isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP, not about cutting off illegal activities entirely. E.g. you sign up with Comcast and you're allowed visit bbc.com, and if you don't you'll have to live without it.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (5, Informative)

AigariusDebian (721386) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969701)

That is not net neutrality.

If you connect to the Internet you are an equal peer on it - you can receive and send data. You have the right to set up services just like bbc.co.uk can. If your ISP cuts you connection without a court order (a court that has jurisdiction over you), then it is a violation of net neutrality.

Traffic shaping based on the destination (or source) of the traffic is also a violation of net neutrality, traffic shaping to prioritize some protocols over others is not (unless a phone company reduces the priority of all VoIP traffic to zero).

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969833)

We're both right.

Limited discrimination and tiering
This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service."[1] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."

Source [wikipedia.org]

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28970109)

No, he was right and you, as well as the idiots who modded you up, were wrong.

Net Neutrality is about the neutrality of a node on the network, it has all the same rights as every other node.
What you said was AGAINST Net Neutrality!
Isolating nodes on a network and limiting access is against it.

Let me guess, you work for one of the ISPs that are trying to confuse people in to hating Network Neutrality?

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28970331)

No. Just because you don't think it is what it is doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

If you have a problem, go yell at wikipedia, troll.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970409)

No, he was right and you, as well as the idiots who modded you up, were wrong.

Net Neutrality is about the neutrality of a node on the network, it has all the same rights as every other node. What you said was AGAINST Net Neutrality! Isolating nodes on a network and limiting access is against it.

Let me guess, you work for one of the ISPs that are trying to confuse people in to hating Network Neutrality?

I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. My point was that by indulging in said activities you break net neutrality. I didn't say that the example was net neutrality, and as I said it's about net neutrality. Meaning it can be both about maintaining it and breaking it, as long as it's about net neutrality. I felt it was easier to explain the concept of net neutrality using an example that breaks it.

And no, I don't work for any ISP. And no I don't hate net neutrality, rather the contrary.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28971393)

That isn't what you said so there was no misunderstanding, you just misspoke. Quote: "Net neutrality is about isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP".

This is not true. That is the antithesis of net neutrality. AigariusDebian's rebuttal is entirely correct. The whole point to net neutrality is kind of like the ideal that people had/have for America (not necessarily what it is mind you); everyone is equal, everyone can go anywhere and do anything so long as you don't abuse those rights to freedom.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972067)

Let me show you where you fail.

"Net neutrality is about isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP"

Correct

"Net neutrality is isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP"

Incorrect

Honestly, we both mean the same thing so why not just leave it at that and leave semantics out of it?

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

awall222 (1276148) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970379)

That is not net neutrality.

If you connect to the Internet you are an equal peer on it - you can receive and send data.

Well, if their internet connection no longer exists...

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970407)

That is not net neutrality.

If you connect to the Internet you are an equal peer on it - you can receive and send data. You have the right to set up services just like bbc.co.uk can. If your ISP cuts you connection without a court order (a court that has jurisdiction over you), then it is a violation of net neutrality.

No, but it might be a violation of contract and a court might have something to say about consequences. If the ISP gives as a reason that you were violating the terms of service, then it's quite possible that you'll have no comeback at them at all (other than a return of potentially some of what you have paid; details matter there).

Traffic shaping based on the destination (or source) of the traffic is also a violation of net neutrality, traffic shaping to prioritize some protocols over others is not (unless a phone company reduces the priority of all VoIP traffic to zero).

Traffic-shaping based on source or destination is indeed the issue (unless either the source or the destination requested it specifically; shaping on an opt-in basis is fine and is useful for things like VoIP and the equivalent for video). An ISP telling a customer to get lost is not; it is right and proper that a customer does not have the power to force the ISP to accept their business (just as it is also good that the ISP can't force the customer to do business with them, which I'm sure people here can appreciate).

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971725)

Giving priority to one protocol over another is NOT net neutrality. Net neutrality, in a VERY short phrase, ensures that the end user can use his bandwidth as he see fit without conforming to other's expectations.

To imply otherwise exposes an agenda. In the case of telcos, the agenda is pretty clear - they want to reserve the bulk of their bandwidth for traditional telephonic services because those services pay more than internet television, VoIP, and P2P.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972889)

We need chainsaw neutrality. If a man walks into a hardware store wearing a hockey mask and a blood-soaked prison jumpsuit, and identifies himself as an axe-murdering serial killer; we should legally obligate store owners to sell that man a chainsaw.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969761)

This kind of activity can lead to very serious degration of freedom of speech and cutting off sites that YOU dont agree with, its not just about malicious activity. There is no difference between cutting of this ISP and say The Pirate Bay's or Wikileaks ISP. All three make certain people very angry. I bet RIAA would like to see TeliaSonera cut The Pirate Bay access to the internet as well. If there is illegal activity going on you report it to the police and dont just cut off the whole ISP. I bet TeliaSonera would love it if they got cut off internet because they're providing upstream for The Pirate Bay. These people are playing with fire.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969865)

I'm not sure getting TeliaSonera cut off from the Internet is going to be all that easy, they're the biggest telco in Sweden and Finland and are quite active in northern and eastern europe, central asia and a few other places. TeliaSonera International Carrier is a Tier 1 btw...

/Mikael

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969883)

Yeah but it just shows my point. If you are big provider you can get away with shit. If you're small provider, people and upstream providers can pressure you. That is completely against net neutrality.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970047)

Actually, the main issue with net neutrality is about ISPs forcing content providers to pay for "premium access" and similar shenanigans. This is just large-scale abuse handling.

/Mikael

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970045)

If TeliaSonera is the upstream for The Pirate Bay, I don't think they would be that happy if they had to cut them off, I bet they generate quite a lot of revenue for them.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28970323)

To put it mildly. Seeing a large chunk of their users have upgraded to better (and more expensive) connections because of TPB.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969837)

Hrmm...cut off their connection, or ninja special-ops team to take them out...cut off their connection, or ninja special-ops team to take them out...tough decision.

I'm guessing the U.S. doesn't have an extradition treaty with Latvia?

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970145)

Let's do both. Kill their connection then let the ninja's go all "Mad Max Thunderdome" on them. Two men enter, one ninja leave.

I have no qualms about kicking people off the net if they show they can't work and play well with others. The internet is a luxury, not a right. (at this point, that is indeed starting to change, but people can and have made out ok without it)

Honestly, I'm so sick of the filthy underbelly of the internet being treated just as well as the rest of the world's (mostly) law-abiding citizens.

*Note that I'm not talking about Billy Bob downloading a movie or something, but the more active scammers/spammers/malware/virus writers/propagators out there.

They're scum and oh how I wish I could have a few minutes in a room alone with them, especially after this morning I got to clean yet another laptop of the Vundo crap.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28970769)

They're scum and oh how I wish I could have a few minutes in a room alone with them, especially after this morning I got to clean yet another laptop of the Vundo crap.

I assume that was a Windows (TM) laptop. Just curious, does Microsoft bear zero responsibility for that?

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971065)

No, of course they don't. Their OS is not as secure as it could be. A lot of it is due to the huge install base, huge code, etc. The average person who sees an unlocked car doesn't break into it. Those that do are scum.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970869)

but as we know USA laws dont apply everywhere.

Reference please?

a slight difference in clientele (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971661)

The Pirate Bay and others who believe they are doing no wrong are more likely to fight in court.

Criminals are more likely to either walk away to avoid a government-issued ban-hammer or use illegal, er, I mean, extra-legal means of "persuasion" to make sure their next ISP won't cut them off.

Re:They'll move elsewhere (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972323)

Now botnets and phishing are really bad, but instead of getting to root of the problem these security researchers are purposely destroying net neutrality

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

I see this as more a case of excising a tumor than anything else. And if it pops up again elsewhere, repeat. If the stakes are high enough, it will become much harder for such places to find a home.

It's not criminal activity when we do it (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969365)

There actually are some consequences now for allowing an obviously heavy concentration of criminal activity on your networks. It's just not going to be accepted anymore.

When will Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T accept the consequences of their users' criminal activity?

Perhaps the malice these researchers feel towards Latvia is similar in some way to the anger the RIAA feels towards filesharers?

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969373)

DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (4, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969417)

Perhaps the malice these researchers feel towards Latvia is similar in some way to the anger the RIAA feels towards filesharers?

Latvia? You're taking things out of context. This is not about Latvia in general, this is about a Latvian ISP responsible for a shitload of spam and botnets. You're free to replace Latvia for any country you wish and it wouldn't make a difference. Also I think it's fair to say that RIAA only serve their interests, whilst spam and botnets concern anybody who uses internet.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969625)

But except for Dr. Doom and a Seinfeld episode [wikipedia.org] most people have never heard of Latvia so this makes it sound exotic.
Personally I love Riga it is nice city with interesting sites to visit and some decent restaurants.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969423)

BadAnalogyGuy is a scientologist.
Basically he's full of shit.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (1, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969483)

Perhaps the malice these researchers feel towards Latvia is similar in some way to the anger the RIAA feels towards filesharers?

Well, malice towards Latvians would be xenophobia, and the RIAA definitely have a lot of phobias, so yes.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (4, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969895)

I thought xenophobia was a fear of virtualised environments?

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 4 years ago | (#28973673)

I conquered my xenophobia and all that parellels it by cointaining it all within a virtualbox!

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (2, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969513)

You may have noticed that there have been stories recently about ISPs who *do* cut off the access of copyright infringers. Without deep packet inspection (which I'm wholly opposed to without a warrant, just making that clear) it's not like they catch anywhere close to all of it, but if they do catch you the contract you signed lets them cut off your access, and they will.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969545)

And I oppose that type of action as well. I don't think that it is the ISP's job to filter what goes on over their networks except to the extent that they may need to throttle some users who flood the pipes during peak usage hours.

The law provides means for wronged parties to seek restitution. The RIAA should definitely sue the filesharers. And if the actions on the Latvian ISP were illegal, the Latvian police should take down the criminals.

Taking down the whole ISP is collective punishment which may make us feel better in the short term, but it only reduces our personal security like any collective action does.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971799)

I don't think that it is the ISP's job to filter what goes on over their networks except to the extent that they may need to throttle some users who flood the pipes during peak usage hours.

I don't even agree with throttling -- at least with the way it tends to be implemented. I don't see an issue with traffic shaping that puts p2p/ftp/nntp/etc at the bottom of the packet queue but if there's so much as a kilobit of free bandwidth it's stupid to throttle someone down just because it's "peak hours"

My own traffic shaping set up at the office looks something like this:

0) VOIP
1) Business related VPN activity
2) TCP ACKs and SYNs, DNS requests, NTP packets
3) Small ssh packets (only small ones so scp/sftp transfers don't get priority -- you want interactive traffic prioritized, not bulk transfers)
4) Web browsing/downloads from our administrative staff
5) Web browsing/downloads from other staff
6) Web browsing/downloads from guest users of the network
7) UDP packets relating to p2p (i.e: DHT trackers)
8) TCP packets relating to p2p (i.e: bittorrent)

Items #7 and #8 can get the full bandwidth of our pipe unless something higher up in the list needs to use it. Each item gets a guaranteed minimum amount of bandwidth. Setups similar to this seem perfectly fair to me -- blanket throttling of traffic just because it's p2p or not bound for the ISPs network does not.

Re:It's not criminal activity when we do it (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971861)

Filesharing is NOT a criminal activity. RIAA is more akin to the criminals in the article than file sharers are. The clients who support RIAA have raped copyright law to the point it is unrecognizable. Fair use is all but history, DRM ensures that most people can't reasonably use their purchases in a fair manner.

IF AND WHEN filesharing is proven to be "unlawful" (as opposed to "illegal") it is a CIVIL matter, as opposed to a criminal offense. As a rule, unlawful and/or illegal acts take place well before the file is shared, as in the case of a Universal Studios employee stealing an early copy of a movie. In such a case, there are multiple civil and criminal actions that can be taken against the perpetrator. The file sharing, in and of itself, is not criminal, and if it is ever made so, that will be a gross violation of all the freedoms guaranteed by the United States consitution.

RIAA is little more than an Americanized Gestapo.

Censorship (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969387)

Why is this being cast in a good light? We should demand net neutrality and not just when it suits us, but always. If you have an issue with their content: sue them, block them, ignore them. Also, how do we define "criminal activity" when talking about an ISP in Lativia? I'm no expert in Lativian law myself, but is spam or a command-and-control center illegal there? Bandwidth suppliers should be doing that, supplying bandwidth. Leave the politics and legal issues to the governments.

Re:Censorship (4, Insightful)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969443)

So you'd prefer to be subjected to DDoS attacks, have your E-mail account hacked and used to send spam, be phished for your credit card details all in the name of Net Neutrality?

These are harmful activities. Harmful to people, REAL PEOPLE. It is the definition, at least in my eyes, of what crime is: serious irreversable harm to a person or people.

Botnets sending out DDoS attacks make the Server Admin's job harder. Whatever site it is running becomes locked, likely losing the business revenue they can never get back.
Hacked Email accounts cause headaches for the person who's account was compromised, it causes headaches for those who recieve it, especially if it came from a white-listed friend, as it means wading through them and deleting them manually rather than have them caught by the filter. And again, most importantly, it makes the server admins job harder, as they have to devise work arounds and filters for Spam.
And the most serious of all? Phishing for card details. Serious Monetery loss from an individual - they may be able to get it back, but not without a serious fight (My card got skimmed at a shop once, they managed to spend £700 before the bank stopped the card. It was a week before a new card was sent out, and 2 months before I got the money back)

A whole industry has arisin around fighting these criminals. We're in a Broken Window [wikipedia.org] situation and the only way to stop it is not to fix the window, but to remove the person throwing the stones.

Re:Censorship (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969467)

This has nothing to do with net neutrality anyway.

Re:Censorship (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969491)

The Latvian ISP isn't throwing stones. It is the stone that is being thrown.

A stone can be used to break a window, crack a head, or choke someone to death. But it can also be used to create a beautiful sculpture, make stone soup, or provide perfect oscillation for your CPU.

The rock throwers are the ones misusing the ISP, not the ISP itself. I wouldn't stand for it for a second if the RIAA decided to sue Comcast out of business because my neighbor was sharing MP3s. Collective punishment is unwarranted and immoral, even if the alternative is personal damage to yourself.

No man should be held accountable for that in which he did not participate. - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28970589)

I believe that the intended effect of this was to get the smaller ISP to get rid of the criminals, then it may then again be able to get a reputable ISP of it's own. Perhaps they were just given a wakeup call that it seems as if they would be deserving if they allowed these criminal activities to become so rampant.

Re:Censorship (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969553)

That sounds very dramatic. The internet is going to end. Oh wait, no it won't.

Cutting off an ISP does next to nothing. Those responsible will just move on, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past few months.

The more problematic issue is: who defines what justifies disconnection? Maybe a consortium of providers decides that "immoral" content has to be disconnected or criticism of their actions or political dissent, etc. Who draws the line and what's their motivation?

Re:Censorship (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970633)

You have to take the bad with the good. Nothing is 100% good.

These are harmful activities. Harmful to people, REAL PEOPLE. It is the definition, at least in my eyes, of what crime is: serious irreversable harm to a person or people.

That's not "criminal", it's "immoral". Posessing marijuana is a crime, but it's not harmful or immoral. Adultery is immoral and very painful to its victims (I can tell you from experience; Evil-X was a serial adultress), but it's perfectly legal. In Illinois it won't even do you any good in a divorce; I tell you that from experience, also.

If a botnet in Latvia DDoSes a server in Canada, the Canadian government should go after them. That's what governments should be mainly for - protect their citizenry from malice, whether the malice of individuals or tha malice of other countries. If your government decides it can't put up with DDoS attacks from a country where DDoSing is legal, it has the right to declare war.

Re:Censorship (1)

theelectron (973857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972409)

Actually, adultery is illegal in many states in the US, and I would assume there are many other countries that also make adultery a crime. As for it being immoral? That really depends on the people involved; many couples are ok with their partner having sex with people other than themselves. While current mainstream US society might frown upon adultery, in some societies it is viewed as moral.

Re:Censorship (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972711)

many couples are ok with their partner having sex with people other than themselves

In that case it's polygamy, not adultery. If one of your parents committed true adultery, you could wind up marrying your sister.

Re:Censorship (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971421)

I am absolutely certain my "definition" for what is crime differs from yours.

Mine has "until proven quilty" clause which yours apparently does not: there were no police nor court order, just a bunch of vigilantes (so called "security researchers", if you prefer).

Re:Censorship (0, Flamebait)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969455)

That's what I'm thinking too. True freedom is allowing what you DON'T like. I'm more worried about the (admittedly small) possibility that this network was doing good things (too?), like publishing stuff to wikileaks.

If the powers that be can just shut down an ISP citing misbehaviour, then they can silence many customers very quickly. Especially if that ISP is one that a particular subculture preferred (say, for its bandwidth or anonymity).

Leave the politics and legal issues to the governments.

I'd rather leave mundane daily civic duties to the government, and politics to the (informed) people.

Re:Censorship (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969549)

The "powers that be" didn't shut them down. Their upstream provider did.

Take this analogy:

--start-bad-analogy--
I let you watch TV at my house. But, most of the time you are there, you leave trash and shit everywhere, and fail to clean up after yourself.

So, after enough complaints from my other guests, I decide to kick your ass out.
--end-bad-analogy--

Re:Censorship (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969559)

--start-bad-analogy--
I let you watch TV at my house. But, most of the time you are there, you leave trash and shit everywhere, and fail to clean up after yourself.

So, after enough complaints from my other guests, I decide to kick your ass out.
--end-bad-analogy--

Hey, fuck you. That's my shtick.

What if I was the one providing everyone a ride that night? You just fucked over all your guests, you inconsiderate asshole.

Re:Censorship (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969601)

The "powers that be" didn't shut them down. Their upstream provider did.

Who are (some of) the people that have power over them.

let you watch TV at my house. But, most of the time you are there, you leave trash and shit everywhere, and fail to clean up after yourself.

Watching TV is a passive activity. Let's say they're ON tv instead. They make a mess of the set, but also happen, in a moment of clarity, to say something important that thousands of viewers find useful. Is it still your right to kick them off TV, even if you did pay for the set? Not really. You probably should've just considered this possibility, and had your set insured.

Re:Censorship (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970349)

Is it still your right to kick them off TV, even if you did pay for the set?

It's your right to kick them off the set, sure, especially if they violated any contract with you.

Regardless of how 'important' or 'useful' they may be, you have no obligation to provide them TV time if they're going to break your shit. They can look for another TV studio who will allow their actors breaking shit on stage, but good luck finding it.

Re:Censorship (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970493)

Actually...

It's more like they are on TV... perhaps giving a lecture on free energy to the world... then all the other people on the set (hey it's a free and open set) start swearing and showing titties.

Now, the FCC doesn't really care about the free energy speech, but they do care that station is breaking the rules. (No one likes free titties)

Down strikes the FCC and away goes the problem. (free energy and all)

It's not like they can never get back on air, but it will take some cleaning up.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28971129)

It's more like they are on TV... perhaps giving a lecture on free energy to the world... then all the other people on the set (hey it's a free and open set) start swearing and showing titties.

Your ideas intrigue me greatly and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Censorship (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969459)

While I'm not certain about Latvia (although my guess is that it obviously is) sending spam mail is illegal in most countries around the world, not to mention creating botnets. I think you've misunderstood the concept of net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing ISP cartels so that e.g. consumers aren't forced into signing up with an ISP simply because this ISP is the only one "licensed" to access certain hosts, such as e.g. a web TV service from a specific broadcasting network.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969849)

Latvia is an EU member state, and there is an EU directive that outlaws sending spam. Hence, Latvia has to have a law that outlaws sending spam.

Re:Censorship (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969981)

There you go. Also I highly doubt this is a borderline case. There's been other ISPs that indulge in this kind of activities (there was one in the US recently who had the same treatment if I'm not mistaken), and that exist solely due to these activities. I don't think it's about an innocent ISP who just happens to get caught in the line of fire. If you're business is based on illegal activities, especially activities that harm everybody (such as botnets and spam), then it's no longer about net neutrality. A lot of posts seem to refer to TPB/TeliaSonera as an example, but you can't treat all crimes equally. The botnets and spams are far worse crimes as they affect everybody, while copyright issues solely affect the copyright holders. If I'm not mistaken (as I'm not American) copyright issues are civil cases while spam and botnet issues are criminal cases.

Re:Censorship (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969975)

Sending spam is illegal under the EU's e-privacy directive. However the maximum punishment is a small fine, and nobody has been prosecuted yet as far as I'm aware.

Re:Censorship (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970097)

Define "spam". Unfortunately, both the EU and the US have laws that are very generous in permitting bulk email: even if the blatantly illegal and fraudulent material is controlled, there remains a lot of protected material that can be and is sent.

Is the EU law any better than the truly stupid US's 'CAN-SPAM' act?

Re:Censorship (3, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969547)

It's almost certainly against the contract terms that Real Host signed with their upstream provider. Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue; this isn't packet injection or traffic shaping or anything like that. This is simply disconnecting a client who is in breach of contract and criminal law. In effect, blocking them (as you personally advocated).

Do you honestly think it should be the responsibility of the rest of the world to deal with these attacks, just because they are sent over the Internet?

DoS attacks are censorship (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969607)

Because this IS a good thing.

You do understand the purpose of a DoS attack don't you?

Re:Censorship (1)

muntis (1503471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969847)

Yes, spam is illegal in Latvia.

Information Society Services Act [likumi.lv])
Paragraph 9.1 (google translated):
Forbidden to use commercial communication sent into the automatic dialing (terminal) systems that operate without human intervention, electronic mail, or fax machines (facsimiles), which allow a single contact with a recipient if recipient has not previously been given a free and explicit consent .

Re:Censorship (1)

Hammer (14284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970163)

And regardless. spam and phishing as well as distribution of rogue antivirus is illegal in Sweden so it seems appropriate that the Swedish ISP cuts them off.....

Re:Censorship (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972053)

Net neutrality does not imply acceptance of illegal conduct. Please, install my bot, so that I can harvest all of your financial information, then buy myself a new electric automobile. Afterwards, you can come back and post here about net neutrality, mmmkay?

Centers of Crap (3, Funny)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969531)

This is maybe one of the top European centers of crap,'

The server 216.178.38.116 is an American server known to have loads of crap too! I hope they also could get it!

Re:Centers of Crap (1, Redundant)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969557)

Fyi, 216.178.38.116 is "profile.myspace.com".

Re:Centers of Crap (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969629)

I think they know that, since MySpace is a huge centre of crap.

Granted, it tends to be self-contained rather than aggressive (so it is crap you land in rather than crap that is thrown at you) but it's still home to a shitload of crap ;)

I almost had FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969561)

But the bastards shut my ISP down!

If there's one kind of cesspool I hate... (4, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969741)

...it's a cesspool of crap.

the other kinds are ok.

Re:If there's one kind of cesspool I hate... (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969845)

As a test of mental strength, now try NOT to visualise a cesspool of butterflies.

Good Job Keeping The Low Lifes Off The Internet (1)

tony7531 (1605921) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969811)

Glad to see law enforcement is keeping up with this kind of activity. Use your talents for good...not evil!

Throw the baby out with the bathwater (3, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970013)

A real problem here is that if upstream providers do this sort of thing, there is no limit to their power. We're not talking about any court action, any due process or any other legal nicity. We are talking about vigilante action and mob rule.

The idea of "net neutrality" pretty much can be agreed upon that upstream providers do not cut off users for actions that violate the laws of some jurisdiction on their own. Now this may not be a good idea, but if your ISP is prevented from cutting you off for downloading pirated music and movies then a rogue ISP better not be cut off for hosting botnet control centers and phishing web sites. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Of course the real problem is that there is no force of law that can successfully prosecute folks like this. They might even be violating laws in their home country - but how do law enforcement agencies conduct a highly technical investigation when they have no facilities. Not only that, but the whole idea of the Internet makes it extremely difficult to conduct investigations without effectively wiretapping and requires the cooperation of a high level provider. It is difficult to see how such an investigation can be conducted by anyone without lots of resources and financial backing. And cooperation of providers, often at their own expense.

No, prosecution of such crimes as are alleged on the Internet is very difficult without either inside information (usually bragging) or evidence collected for other court actions. For example, the ISP is sued for lack of tax payments and the servers are seized as part of discovery, which then uncovers further evidence.

No I think this vigilante action is short lived and not in the best interests of people vitally concerned with the freedom of action on the Internet. Of course, freedom of action implies freedom to commit crimes on the Internet, like copyright violation and phishing.

Re:Throw the baby out with the bathwater (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970205)

A real problem here is that if upstream providers do this sort of thing, there is no limit to their power.

Well, all providers have this power and are using it. You bet that my (and hopefully your) upstream provider will cut me off very fast the moment I start spamming the world.

What I then must do is either look for another (upstream) provider or stop spamming.

If I would start moaning "but I was not accused by law of anything" they would just show me the AUP I agreed with. The same should be happening with anybodies provider. You spam? We disallow you to do that over our network.

Re:Throw the baby out with the bathwater (2, Interesting)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970491)

If I would start moaning "but I was not accused by law of anything" they would just show me the AUP I agreed with. The same should be happening with anybodies provider. You spam? We disallow you to do that over our network.

Exactly. Network Neutrality shouldn't (IMO) preclude ISPs from banning harmful acts over their networks through their contracts. You should be allowed to prohibit illegal activities and those whose primary purpose is to disrupt the service of others.

Network Neutrality should simply say that you should be treated the same, no matter who you are and who you're talking to. It doesn't matter if you interrupt your neighbor's connection or a foreign connection, both are blocked. If they limit high-bandwidth applications, they do so for all customers evenly, regardless of whether the remote client is owned by themselves or a competitor, and enumerate it in their contract.

That said, we also need the ability to choose amongst more than 2-3 (or fewer) broadband ISPs so that we can choose to avoid usage agreements we don't agree with, but that's separate from Net Neutrality.

Re:Throw the baby out with the bathwater (2, Informative)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970461)

A real problem here is that if upstream providers do this sort of thing, there is no limit to their power. We're not talking about any court action, any due process or any other legal nicity. We are talking about vigilante action and mob rule.

You agreed to abide by your ISP's AUP when you signed up for their service. I know this because I'm damn sure that it's a condition of the service agreement, and I'm sure that any court would view that as a reasonable and proportionate thing to impose. Yes, there is collusion between ISPs on this; no legit ISP wants anything to do with the likes of the scum behind the RBN...

Real Host is not an ISP (3, Informative)

ACS Solver (1068112) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970585)

The summary is quite wrong, though I do not blame the submitter. All English and Russian language sources that I can find state that supposedly Real Host, an ISP, got cut off. That is not actually so.

Real Host is some company that is running fraudulent operations and other crap, making use of the Zeus botnet. Real Host rented servers from Junik, which is an ISP. They're a small ISP connected upstream via the Latvian branch of Telia. And the story now is that Junik cut off Real Host's access and revoked the servers they rented. Real Storm itself doesn't appear to be linked to Latvia in any real way. They use an address in Kazakhstan as the legal address from where the IP blocks are leased, the botnet itself is being linked to a Russian group of hackers. And they chose Latvian servers to rent, which doesn't make them a Latvia-based group.

Emotionally charged (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970899)

Whenever I see such emotionally charged statements, I tend to take them with a grain or two of salt, especially when they're coming from people who are supposed to be rational, like security researchers...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...