On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:11:11 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > The law does not say : send "Pirate Bay" to "example.com" to deceive > > your users! it may instruct you to send coca-cola.org to > > coca-cola.com > > The law instructs me to tell customers the lie that various Pirate Bay > domains are not available. This is a lie because the domains *would > be* available if the customer had used OpenDNS, Google Public DNS etc. >
when the domain registry tells you that example.com is not registered it is not a lie either. when a court tells you to resolve a domain in a certain way, this is not a lie. when there is an RFC that describers how to lie and then adds deception, this is no longer something to negotiate or to discuss much. We are typing an email, on a mailing list. it is what it is. we can call it a zoomba on a zimba - but it still is what it is. you still have not talked about lying, deceiving, stealing, etc. Where is the line? What is okay for a draft? describing a method of theft? ( anyway, nowhere in this draft does it say anything about this method being defined for the purposes of managing court orders or to comply with law enforcement. ) > Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this matter. > it is not about us agreeing on anything. It is about us discussing ethics of this draft and the fact that it defines lying and deception. Even if we do not agree about lying, deceiving and fraud, can we maybe agree about where the ethical line then is? Is it okay to publish a draft defining a protocol on how to steal a resource? or maybe defining a protocol for phishing? where is the line and at what point is it now okay, for yourself? Andre _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
