Lawyer Says ISPs Should Be Legally Liable For Denial Of Service Attacks
from the bad,-bad-ideas dept
For some reason, there are always people who figure that when there's a situation where someone is harmed, you should blame the easiest, or most accessible party, rather than those actually responsible. You see it in things like the lawsuits against YouTube, rather than the person responsible for uploading infringing material. The latest is that a lawyer in the UK is proposing that ISPs should be responsible for denial of service attacks, and that it should be their responsibility to stop them. How? Well, they should just inspect all of the packets to determine whether they're legit or not. Of course, this should set off all different kinds of alarm bells. First, even if you know what the packets are, that doesn't mean you'll be able to spot (or stop) a denial of service attack. What's to say if it's a real attack or you suddenly get a lot of attention from elsewhere on the web driving a lot of traffic? Second, asking ISPs to inspect each and every packet should scare off lots of people who don't want their ISPs inspecting the specific types of traffic on the network, and who find it as a foot in the doorway to ISPs charging different amounts for different kinds of traffic. Finally, as with the network neutrality issue, the more ISPs inspect the traffic, the higher the likelihood that everyone just starts encrypting their traffic to make it so the ISPs can't tell what's traveling across the network. So, really, all this does is add more costs for the ISPs, slow down network traffic and do nothing to stop actual denial of service attacks. But, at least it makes it easier for the lawyers to be able to point to who they can sue.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Makes about as much sense as what he's saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not Blame global warming
1st !!!!! maybe second after that rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dang nab it anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason
It's a lot easier to get settlements from ISP's who have money then from somebody living in their parents basement.
Settlements = $$$$ for lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What an idiot
He may know that it's possible to inspect all traffic, but doesn't understand the ramifications that it would have on cost of service (prices would have to go up, to pay for all the packet inspection hardware), and network performance would go down (if you inspect the packet, it adds latency).
I run a small ISP in a rural area, and I can tell you 100% that if there was a law that suddenly said "you have to inspect all your traffic, or face DOS lawsuits" we would pretty much be forced to just gracefully shut ourselves down - there's no way the smaller ISP's of the world can do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obviously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henry V111
I apologize to all the good and well intentioned lawyers and hope both of you are not offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tubes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
User perspective
In our western culture, we delegate the use of force to our government, and in return, we expect the government to use that force to protect our person and our property. In this case, this general principle is applied by the lawyer's client, who experiences real property losses due to the DoS attack. He rightly expects protection because the government tells him he cannot use force on his own.
Clearly, the lawyer is the wrong guy to solve this network problem, but until those who can resolve these network service issues (perhaps IETF) do resolve these network service issues, we will continue to see these unqualified individuals submit their opinions.
Certainly, dismiss the proposal as naive, but in doing so, understand that the proposal is a reaction to a real problem. The internet is an anarchy, and that doesn't mash up with our citizenship's fundamental reliance on the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not entirely unreasonable
Making this happen isn't difficult for any intelligent, responsible, competent admin. After all: if others can see the packets ENTERING their network(s), then surely you can see them LEAVING yours -- if only you bother to look.
And arguably, this is much, MUCH easier now than it was years ago. The tools available for the job are free/open-source, and easily deployed on cheap, commodity hardware. And it's just not that hard to spot the truly egregious problems -- in other words, I'm not expecting admins to spot one isolated ssh attempt....but *thousands* from the same IP, that's a no-brainer. Or huge spam runs -- easily spotted by looking at netflows on routers. And so on.
And I know that everyone gets nailed from time to time. Goes with the territory. So I don't expect anybody to have a spotless track record -- just to be paying attention, stop most things before they get to an issue, and respond rapidly to external reports of things that they missed.
I'm not necessarily in favor of enforcing competent network administration via litigation. But I'm certainly in favor of quarantining networks with {systemic, long-term, repeated} issues because there's no reason why the entire rest of the Internet should have to put up with that kind of nonsense. The people running those networks may be cheap, lazy, stupid or possibly on-the-take (spammers and others are known to make payoffs), but I don't really care which it is: the bottom line is that they
are simply *not good enough* to be allowed the privilege of being on the same Internet with the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a bad idea.. but quite hard to implement
The problem is that those on the receiving end of DDoS are much smaller entities than those on the sending end. AOL, Comcast, and Verizon are going to put up a good fight to ensure legislation is never passed that makes them responsible for their customers' traffic -- no matter how reasonable a proposition that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internode...
All the ISPs would do is tell all thier customers that the problem is thiers, no crap gets out or well shape you for a few hours while you cool off, then the admins tell thier users, and so forth. Eventual;luy, you get down to the user responsible, who gets:
a) a punch in the face from his parents for getting thier internet disconnected.
b) fired
c) expelled
d) disconnected
Simple really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can argue that it's not the ISP's problem, but in the US we've constantly thrown the book at people that provide service or products to those that should not be receiving them. It is illegal for a stor clerk to sell alcohol to a minor, so why not make it illegal to sell connection service to a spam spewing PC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]