Re: YouTube IP Hijacking

> But, due to a lot of effort in making better
educational material
> available for pilots, including better flight
simulators and
> better simulator scenarios, flying is a lot safer than
it was
> in 1958.

At the risk of being a stereotypical American liberal, I'll
point out two
significant reasons flying is safer than it used to be in
the US are Federal
regulation and post-accident lawsuits. If there were an
organization like
the FAA that had the power to "ground" AS17557
until their network engineers
completed a week's refresher course, there'd be
significantly better change
management techniques in play. If YouTube were currently
suing Pakistani
Telecom for eighty-seven gazillion dollars-- and were widely
considered a
lock to win their lawsuit-- suddenly a whole lot of other
ISPs would
magically find the training budget to make sure THEIR
engineers didn't
expose THEM to that sort of liability.

Pilots don't spend dozens of hours in simulators because
it's fun, they do
it to get/keep their license. American Airlines doesn't
spend millions of
dollars on pilot (and ground crew) education because they're
run by
philanthropists, they do it because screwups could cost them
orders of
magnitude more money. The Internet lacks any such
enforcement mechanisms.
How many people do you think have lost their jobs for this
latest incident?
What are the odds that the responsible party lost a penny in
revenue or in
fines?

When there is no financial or regulatory pressure to avoid
screwups,
avoiding screwups ceases to be a priority at Layer 8 or
Layer 9. And then
you have incidents like this, where the operational
solutions are widely
agreed upon and the political obstacles are widely agreed to
be
insurmountable. And we wait for the next incident.
-- 
Dave Pooser, ACSA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com

Since the US has no jurisdiction over 17557, other than for
the US govt.
to force ISPs to refuse to accept any advertisements with
17557 or any
other AS that didn't meet some regulatory requirements in
the path, how
would you propose that the regulatory environment you
envision work?

American Airlines isn't the right straw-man here, Pakistan
International
Airlines is. The only reason THEY meet anyone else's
standards is that
they wouldn't be allowed to use the airspace or land if they
didn't.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanogmerit.edu [mailto:owner-nanogmerit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Dave Pooser
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:15 AM
> To: nanogmerit.edu
> Subject: Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
> 
> 
> > But, due to a lot of effort in making better
educational material 
> > available for pilots, including better flight
simulators and better 
> > simulator scenarios, flying is a lot safer than it
was in 1958.
> 
> At the risk of being a stereotypical American liberal,
I'll 
> point out two significant reasons flying is safer than
it 
> used to be in the US are Federal regulation and
post-accident 
> lawsuits. If there were an organization like the FAA
that had 
> the power to "ground" AS17557 until their
network engineers 
> completed a week's refresher course, there'd be
significantly 
> better change management techniques in play. If YouTube
were 
> currently suing Pakistani Telecom for eighty-seven
gazillion 
> dollars-- and were widely considered a lock to win
their 
> lawsuit-- suddenly a whole lot of other ISPs would
magically 
> find the training budget to make sure THEIR engineers
didn't 
> expose THEM to that sort of liability.
> 
> Pilots don't spend dozens of hours in simulators
because it's 
> fun, they do it to get/keep their license. American
Airlines 
> doesn't spend millions of dollars on pilot (and ground
crew) 
> education because they're run by philanthropists, they
do it 
> because screwups could cost them orders of magnitude
more 
> money. The Internet lacks any such enforcement
mechanisms.
> How many people do you think have lost their jobs for
this 
> latest incident?
> What are the odds that the responsible party lost a
penny in 
> revenue or in fines?
> 
> When there is no financial or regulatory pressure to
avoid 
> screwups, avoiding screwups ceases to be a priority at
Layer 
> 8 or Layer 9. And then you have incidents like this,
where 
> the operational solutions are widely agreed upon and
the 
> political obstacles are widely agreed to be
insurmountable. 
> And we wait for the next incident.
> --
> Dave Pooser, ACSA
> Manager of Information Services
> Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com

> 
> 
> 
>