What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going straight to the point.

Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and other things which force us to legally take action and turn things down when reported.

What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?

I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack. https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?

Mehmet

Well, once they let NetOps fire sales staff we can get some traction going.

could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?

Nope. If they follow the word of the providers and services they use, there is no reason to terminate the service. CloudFlare terminating 8chan’s service was a one off thing. Search rankings have nothing to do with the hosting or proxy provider. If 8chan is coloed, the only options are feds seizing hardware or tapping their connectivity.

Ryan

I''d suggest reducing their reputation rankings, as reported by SpamHous and their kin. That's not to say that "Spamhaus and their kin must", although that would be one implementation. Another would be to include them also some other ranking mechanism in the analysis, and reduce the reputation of such sites in the implied alternative.

Another would be to include such rankings in their calculations of whom to accept as customers - BGP or otherwise - and if some AS seems to accept such as customers, not accept them. I imagine they do, to some extent, but this could be followed up more closely.

I do not quite understand this.

In days of yore, nutters used to send their screeds to Newspapers, TV and Radio stations. Did you shut them down or move them to frequencies that could not be received with COTS TVs and Radios? Did you ban the newspapers, put them out of business, or make it so their broadsheet was only available by travelling by aeroplane for 8 hours before breakfast?

Of course not, you silly duck!

There is an advantage to having all the nutters congregating on one place -- you know exactly where to find them. Granted, the advantage is not exactly the same as we apply to politicians (or lawyers) who are kepts all in one place so that kinetic weapons can dispatch the whole lot at one go if necessary.

However, your solution of sweeping things you do not like under the rug is ill-conceived if not brain-dead in conception and you must not be permitted to carry out your objectives. The fate of the free world depends on it.

However, do not worry. US AG William Barr is doing a fine job deploying his "backdoors". Why just the other day one of them was used to shut down the Georgia State Public Safety Services, and prior to that his "backdoors" were used to shut down several city computer systems in Florida and even the City of Baltimore. Good work with those backdoors, Mr. Barr. Job well done!

It is nincompoops who do not think about what they are doing that create such a bloody mess of things. They should let the adults take care of it.

Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Mehmet,

I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal, if offensive, content than the phone company can, without losing that common carrier status.

Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?

In America we have the right to free speech, and the right to use common carriers to carry that speech. If a common carrier chooses to censor legal speech, which is what Cloudfare has done, then it loses its CC status and can now be sued for that speech.

-mel beckman

Peace,

What can we do better as network operators about
hate sites like 8Chan?

About nothing, because recent IETF developments like QUIC, ESNI, or
MASQUE would completely prohibit you from figuring out what sites you,
as an ISP, are giving an access to. This is, uh, the very point of
those developments.

I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on
kicking 8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack.

The 8chan shutdown is no more than a one off. And I assume 8chan just
needs to change the name to get their service back. There's no trend
whatsoever.

This is also sooo funny, because Cloudflare is happily protecting even
DDoS booters for almost a decade.

$ host -t A ddos-black.info
ddos-black.info has address 104.31.72.53
ddos-black.info has address 104.31.73.53
$ whois 104.31.72.53 | grep OrgName:
OrgName: Cloudflare, Inc.
$ host -t A ddos-stress.cc
ddos-stress.cc has address 104.28.4.14
ddos-stress.cc has address 104.28.5.14
$ whois 104.28.4.14 | grep OrgName:
OrgName: Cloudflare, Inc.
$

Those booters basically only exist because Cloudflare, OVH, and others
allow them to. A booter business isn't very steady and profitable.
Without a cheap DDoS protection those services would be dead in weeks,
because sometimes their operators don't even know how to mitigate
their own attacks themselves. So they get that protection from
Cloudflare, because apparently that doesn't violate "the Cloudflare
mission to help build a better Internet".

This is just one example. Carding fraud, malware, illegal munitions,
drugs, whatever. It's all there. But, ya know, all those are much
better than some imageboard outta there. The latter is the root of all
evil.

“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled programming.”

Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.

-mel

“I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?”

As network operators? We shouldn’t do anything. The onus falls on the hosting companies. I do not want to go down the slippery slope of deciding what traffic should or should not be allowed on the internet. That process involves traffic sniffing and possibly attempting to break encryption to see what’s flowing through the pipes. I’m adamantly against that.

If I’m building and maintaining highways, I’m not opening up every single truck to make sure there’s nobody being smuggled inside. The trucking company can police what cargo is in their trailers.

* mel@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Mon 05 Aug 2019, 17:21 CEST]:

Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?

Finally, a centrist to point out the true culprits of all this violence

Mel:

My understanding is ISPs are not Common Carriers. Didn’t we just have a big debate about this w/r/t Network Neutrality? I Am Not A Lawyer (hell, I am not even an ISP :), but if any legal experts want to chime in, please feel free to educate us.

Put another way, ISPs are not phone companies. Moreover, ISPs - and CDNs and hosting providers and etc. - can have terms of service which do not allow certain types of content on their platform. Again, that is is my understanding. Happy to be educated by someone who specializes in this type of law. I know there are a couple such people on NANOG-l.

P.S. Interesting choice equating a group founded on the principals that “Nazis are bad” and a group espousing Nazi ideas. But that’s very off-topic, so if you want to discuss, please do so directly.

American ISPs are not common carriers. When net neutrality was revoked on December 14, 2017, so was ISP's common carrier status / protection.

I think that is closing the barn door after the horse already left.

It is my understanding that in your fabulous United States of America that "carriers" (meaning having no content serving nor content consuming customers*) may be "common carriers" or can claim to be common carriers. The rest of you who are not pure carriers are, thanks to Ijit Pai, merely Information Services and do not have common carrier status, nor can you claim to be common carriers.

A "common carrier" is one who must provide carriage provided the fee for carriage is paid. This is not the case for "Information Service" providers as they are not required to provide carriage to any who can pay the fee for carriage.

*I hate the term "content", it is somowhat lame.

What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?

What is a “hate site” and who gets to decide what constitutes a “hate site”? These are the most dangerous questions of our time, because once we begin sliding down the slippery slope of unbounded, subjectively-determined censorship, we may find that we don’t agree with what all is being censored. To make this point perhaps more saliently, the vast majority of regimes worldwide that engage or have engaged in censorship have done so primarily in order to quell dissent against their policies and leaders. We could implement a “great firewall” much like China has, but how long would it be before it was viewed as a useful political tool to silence opposition?

Could you imagine one side determining that any content related to, perhaps, safe access to abortion, is counter to their ideal society and hence “too dangerous” to allow the citizenry to view? Could the other side then determine just as easily that content related to, say, gun rights is objectionable and dangerous, also?

In my humble opinion, no one can or should be trusted with that sort of power, and that is why we have the first amendment in the US constitution.

I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack. https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

Cloudflare is a private entity and can host or not host whatever it wants, of course.

I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?

Websites can’t end innocent lives; only actions taken offline by their participants can do that. Having all of these sites online and as in-the-open as possible has a benefit of allowing law enforcement to monitor activity therein through legal means which allow for oversight and due process, US constitutional concepts which protect all of us from potential abuses of power. If we as operators wish to help prevent crimes and violence, then we should foster good relationships with law enforcement, and inform them of anything that we notice which may be related to the commission of or threats of violence. They can then follow prescribed paths which protect everyone involved to determine whether enforcement action is necessary/possible without violating anyones’ rights. I’m not claiming the system is perfect, of course, but I don’t think anyone’s going to do a whole lot better.

There is no perfect system. Bad people can and will still do bad things. The best that we each can do is to be aware of our surroundings at all times both online and off, and protect ourselves, our families, our homes, and our communities.

  • Matt

Patrick,

You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom regulatory purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs protection from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they operate as pure common carriers:

“Section 512(a) provides a safe harbor from liability for ISPs, provided that they operate their networks within certain statutory bounds, generally requiring the transmission of third-party information without interference, modification, storage, or selection. [emphasis mine]

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v27/27HarvJLTech257.pdf

-mel

What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?

I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the n-word makes them
cool, and then other bland users.

I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan
off its platform today after El Paso attack.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their customer. This
was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least 30 days under any hosting
contract. This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?

Once you make the point that you're willing to play that game, how can you be
trusted as a provider?

I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
reached, and used to end innocent lives?

These atrocities were committed by people willing to die for their cause, how
ever sick and fucked up it is. There's little anyone can do against this sort
of actor, and it is why it's so terrifying. I certainly don't have a solution
to it, but can say censorship is not the answer.

I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal, if offensive, content than the phone company can, without losing that common carrier status.

Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?

In America we have the right to free speech, and the right to use common carriers to carry that speech. If a common carrier chooses to censor legal speech, which is what Cloudfare has done, then it loses its CC status and can now be sued for that speech.

-mel beckman

ISPs are not common carriers, and, in fact, they have the right to carry - or to not carry - whatever traffic they choose. In fact, for some aspects of Internet traffic, ISP immunity is specifically written into the law (cf. CAN-SPAM §8(c) which states that "(c) No EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effecton the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route,relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages.").

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Mel gets to decide what's on topic and off topic for the nanog list?

:smiley:

If they were a paying customer... sure, maybe 30 days. However, if they're a paying customer, their agreement likely gives cloudflare an out under some situations.

If they aren't a paying customers, then you give them the amount of time in relation to how much they are paying. In this case, if they are paying $0, then I think giving them until Midnight was being overly generous.

Section 512(a) applies very specifically to the copyright infringement issue as addressed in the DMCA. While I don't disagree that this law school paper, written while Lovejoy was a law student, in 2013, could be read as if ISPs were common carriers, they are not, and were not. Even if it were headed that way, actions by the current FTC and administration rolled back net neutrality efforts in 2017, four years after this student paper was published.

All that said, this is very arcane stuff, and ever-mutating, so it's not at all difficult to see why reasonable people can differ about the meanings of various things out there.

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association