Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
All posts Ariadne Conill 🐰's posts Post Back to profile
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@eff is totally wrong with this take about KiwiFarms and HE: eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps

Every customer of HE signs a contract, which states that they will abide by the TOS/AUP or their service may be interrupted.

There is no world where KiwiFarms abides by their TOS/AUP. By design the entire purpose of the website is an egregious violation of multiple points of the HE AUP.

HE has the right to enforce their TOS/AUP by not routing traffic to Joshua Moon.

EFF should retract this article immediately.

3 Sep 2023 at 6:18 | Open on social.treehouse.systems
68 comments
Silo 🇺🇸 ❤ 🇺🇦
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@silo_bear @eff

Yes, a hacker news link from a KiwiFarms user, linking to… KiwiFarms. Such news. Wow.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:24 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
apalu

@ariadne @eff the linked article says that kiwi farms is not a customer of HE and so wouldn't have signed their TOS 🤔​ how exactly is this working? I don't really understand what HE is doing after reading the article...

3 Sep 2023 at 7:29 | Reply | Open on furry.engineer
JulianCalaby

@apalu @ariadne @eff Technically that is correct however you're assuming that the relevant clause of HE.net's ToS/AUP is functionally equivalent to "your company will not produce hate speech".

However this is an agreement between a ISP and a hosting provider so HE.net would be massively negligent in policing their service and managing their reputation if that clause wasn't something more like "you will not _transmit_ hate speech", which means that the hosting provider is agreeing to basically police their users or face consequences.

I'm sure that HE.net is trying to be as reasonable as possible here based on the consequences being _filtering_ not _kicking_, so I'm guessing that this situation has happened because the hosting provider has basically been told "do the right thing or else" and not complied.

And yes there is a big thorny issue here around who is ultimately responsible for - and therefore punished for - hate speech, but ultimately as this is all about agreements between various private entities, a violation can be whatever matches the wording of the contract that the parties agreed to and if people feel hurt by this then they need to negotiate a more favourable contract.

(ETA: this was based on a previous version of the replied post that finished at the emoji and on reading the new version, I think this is a more technical rather than "legal" question. As I understand it, HE.net is filtering the hosting provider's traffic to specifically exclude Kiwifarms' traffic, presumably because they're trying to not boot some random hosting provider off the net over what should be a relatively small issue.)

@apalu @ariadne @eff Technically that is correct however you're assuming that the relevant clause of HE.net's ToS/AUP is functionally equivalent to "your company will not produce hate speech".

However this is an agreement between a ISP and a hosting provider so HE.net would be massively negligent in policing their service and managing their reputation if that clause wasn't something more like "you will not _transmit_ hate speech", which means that the hosting provider is agreeing to basically police...

3 Sep 2023 at 7:52 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@juliancalaby @apalu @eff

HE has a contract with IncogNET, the hosting provider who Moon is using.

IncogNET is obligated by that contract to enforce a TOS/AUP that meets or exceeds the HE one. They are not doing so.

So HE black holes the offending content themselves. All allowed by the contract between HE and IncogNET.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:28 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Keith Gable :whyfox:🇺🇦🌻

@ariadne @eff it sounds like HE is refusing to transit KF period and Moon has no relationship with HE.

I disagree with the EFF though. If you’re not announcing a route to a particular subnet, that’s totally reasonable. If HE is announcing a route and is blackholing traffic destined there, then that’s worth complaining about.

Things are a little weird when it comes to their tunnel broker because they have to be the default gateway.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:00 | Reply | Open on ruby.social
Keith Gable :whyfox:🇺🇦🌻

@ariadne @eff I’m willing to argue that accessing KF as a tunnel broker user itself constitutes a TOS violation, though. If someone weren’t, fine, but nothing stops them from routing that traffic off of their network at the first opportunity.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:04 | Reply | Open on ruby.social
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@ZiggyTheHamster @eff Moon has relationships with hosting providers who use HE for transit and fail to meet their obligations under their contract with HE. HE is doing this instead of terminating those hosting providers outright.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:25 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Keith Gable :whyfox:🇺🇦🌻

@ariadne @eff if they’re not announcing that they’re a route there, then I have no issues at all with them doing this, though it sounds like they should also enforce their TOS on their customers. It’s ordinary for ISPs to refuse to announce routes on these sorts of issues.

If they are announcing they’re a route but are blackholing traffic, that’s perhaps something to argue about but not for any of the reasons that the EFF objects.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:37 | Reply | Open on ruby.social
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@ZiggyTheHamster @eff they are just not accepting the route. it’s not their problem that IncogNET is single-homed.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:38 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Keith Gable :whyfox:🇺🇦🌻

@ariadne @eff oh, it’s even dumber than I thought then. Either KT or SKTelecom, and I forget which, is very bad about refusing to accept routes for competing ISPs, resulting in what should be a route like ICN->NRT->SJC turning into a route like ICN->BUR->NRT->SJC. It’s so bad that we have a workaround for Korea customers that uses AWS’s network because whichever company it is will accept that route.

This is entirely ordinary for HE to do. This is a nothingburger.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:54 | Reply | Open on ruby.social
Keith Gable :whyfox:🇺🇦🌻

@ariadne @eff what concerns me is that the way this EFF article is written makes me feel like maybe the author is upset about the target of the unrouting more so than the action taken. Since they’re never really clear what action HE took. It doesn’t sound like it’s actually censorship and instead sounds like they’re refusing to platform something which has a long defined mechanism to announce to the world you refuse to platform.

3 Sep 2023 at 9:45 | Reply | Open on ruby.social
Ariadne Conill 🐰

what next? @eff blasting gmail for refusing to accept spam?

3 Sep 2023 at 9:42 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Electronic Eel

@ariadne @eff when you take into account gmail's shady definition of what is spam - then yes please.

gmails "spam" filter is very often blocking or rate limiting smaller mail servers, even when they only send fully legitimate emails. since gmail is so big and people need to have their mail delivered to gmail to reach their customers or friends, this effectively drives customers to gmail or one of the few big mail providers. this changes email from a fully distributed system into an oligopoly

3 Sep 2023 at 9:52 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Ariadne Conill 🐰

ah yes, one of the losers from that vile website sent me a comment i didn’t bother reading.

although that vile website has caused substantive harm to several friends and colleagues over the years, my objection to the EFF publishing this irresponsible take is that they are attempting to erode the right of network operators to enforce their policies, which will result in a much less secure internet.

as somebody who was a CTO of a reasonably sized NSP, this is not the outcome we want as a society. if every single takedown had to be adjudicated, illegal activities such as spam operations, malware distribution and CSAM distribution would take considerably longer to shut down than they already do, while tangible harms from these operations would continue for much longer.

did EFF blast Microsoft for shutting down various botnet control infrastructure? no.

ah yes, one of the losers from that vile website sent me a comment i didn’t bother reading.

although that vile website has caused substantive harm to several friends and colleagues over the years, my objection to the EFF publishing this irresponsible take is that they are attempting to erode the right of network operators to enforce their policies, which will result in a much less secure internet.

3 Sep 2023 at 11:58 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Ariadne Conill 🐰

did EFF blast UnitedLayer for terminating Atrivo? no

3 Sep 2023 at 12:09 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Ariadne Conill 🐰

bulletproof hosting is bulletproof hosting no matter how much ranting about “Big Tech” is present in the marketing copy.

and the customers of bulletproof hosting providers are typically engaged in various criminal operations as noted earlier in the thread.

that EFF would stand up for the bulletproof hosting provider is unthinkable!

3 Sep 2023 at 12:13 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Jimmy Jim

@ariadne Of all the hills to choose to die on...

3 Sep 2023 at 12:23 | Reply | Open on mastodon.social
tante

@starchturrets @ariadne the EFF and many other libertarian leaning NGOs in the US have been speaking very loudly through whose rights they actively fight for. Nazis and right wing mobs always get more support than sex workers for example. It's such a big "blind spot" that they can't be unaware of it

3 Sep 2023 at 14:14 | Reply | Open on tldr.nettime.org
Thomas Guyot-Sionnest

@ariadne the issue here is about a backbone provider filtering traffic to a 3rd party. Since you mention TOS/AUP earlier, ok but then if they feel that one of their direct customer is violating it by allowing KF shouldn't they block *that* customer and not KF? This sets a dangerous precedent.

3 Sep 2023 at 13:09 | Reply | Open on noc.social
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@dermoth they are not "blocking" anything. they are just refusing to accept the KF-specific routes.

3 Sep 2023 at 13:10 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Thomas Guyot-Sionnest

@ariadne I think this statement is about as biased as all other comparisons I've seen about the issue so far...

3 Sep 2023 at 13:37 | Reply | Open on noc.social
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@dermoth I don't see how it is Hurricane’s fault that IncogNET has managed to become single-homed due to being a bulletproof hosting provider

3 Sep 2023 at 13:45 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
nepi

@ariadne@social.treehouse.systems @eff@mastodon.social Uh yeah, kinda. https://www.eff.org/effector/14/31

See: junk mail section.

Granted this is like twenty years ago, but the EFF is kinda…fanatical about 1A stuff extending to the private sector. It sucks cause it kind of undermines (for me, anyways) a lot of the good work they do around privacy.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:31 | Reply | Open on cloth.social
Mark Dixon

@ariadne @eff Indeed, it’s just more nativity from the EFF, I dont think they live in the real world. It’s never worked that at and never will. Why? Because the systems become unusable for everyone.
A simple and very very old example is email. Even back in the 1990s days of the Internet, we had spam on email and if your reputable isp caught you spamming you’d be in trouble. Same with shitposting on usenet.

3 Sep 2023 at 10:55 | Reply | Open on mastodon.social
Matthew Booth

@ariadne @eff It's clearly nuanced, but I agree with the EFF in this.

3 Sep 2023 at 12:14 | Reply | Open on hachyderm.io
VL

@ariadne @eff This is essentially Paradox of tolerance. We as a society can't tolerate intolerance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_

3 Sep 2023 at 12:28 | Reply | Open on snarthelg.no
OpenDNA⚙️

@ariadne @eff EFF: "To put it even more simply: When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house..."

We do, in fact, do exactly that. We also seize the house, cars, bank accounts, children, and any other property related. Then we require the person, who had their property seized, prove their innocence - by litigation without any resources - to get their wealth back.

3 Sep 2023 at 13:47 | Reply | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
Bjornsdottirs

@opendna @ariadne @eff Which... uncomfy energy tbh.

There's a point to a slippery slope argument, but it becomes fallacious when the slope has already been slid down (it has)

also, children aren't property.

3 Sep 2023 at 13:55 | Reply | Open on mastodon.top
OpenDNA⚙️

@ariadne @eff And just in case it isn't obvious to the EFF: we also do that for children seeking abortions, anyone who helps them, and for parents who refuse to abuse their trans children.

When choosing who should get hurt, the EFF decided to support the terrorists instead of their victims. Al Qaeda would have been a more sympathetic client; at least AQ didn't receive material support from US state governments.

3 Sep 2023 at 13:56 | Reply | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
Matthew Booth

@opendna @ariadne @eff The crucial difference is that the court does those things, and the party being disconnected has (at least theoretically) procedural redress. I agree with the EFF that we do not want corporations to be arbiters of our freedoms.

3 Sep 2023 at 13:56 | Reply | Open on hachyderm.io
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@mattb @opendna @eff if Hurricane was actually disconnecting somebody's power or internet connectivity, I might be more sympathetic.

but in this case, they are just refusing to add two IP prefixes to an allowlist because their customer has allowed their downstream customer to fall in breach of their TOS/AUP.

sorry, but this is an open and shut contract law case.

IncogNET can go to a different carrier (in fact, they were previously multihomed!) if they want to provide bulletproof hosting to hate sites and other criminal enterprises. The fact that they are no longer multihomed is because of their own choices as a provider.

@mattb @opendna @eff if Hurricane was actually disconnecting somebody's power or internet connectivity, I might be more sympathetic.

but in this case, they are just refusing to add two IP prefixes to an allowlist because their customer has allowed their downstream customer to fall in breach of their TOS/AUP.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:01 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@mattb @opendna @eff basically Joshua Moon has managed to con the EFF into showing its ass, again

3 Sep 2023 at 14:02 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Matthew Booth

@ariadne @opendna @eff I'm taking the EFF at their word here, but IIUC they argue that Hurricane is so large that if they refuse your traffic you are effectively denied internet access. They singled out 'Tier 1' providers in that regard.

Taking them at their word, I do not believe we should allow them to make contract terms of the sort KF would be in breach of. I have no problem kicking them off the internet, it just scares the shit out of me that we might let a corporation make the choice.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:13 | Reply | Open on hachyderm.io
Chris "$8 peasant" Jones

@mattb @ariadne @opendna @eff there’s no good faith argument for KF specifically to be given internet service, there’s only abstract free speech arguments which rely on an assumption that any denial of speech invariably and unalterably leads to totalitarianism.
Compelling a company to provide a service which nobody would defend directly, seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:29 | Reply | Open on mastodon.tenshu.net
Matthew Booth

@cmsj @ariadne @opendna @eff It's fine as long as we all agree on who nobody should defend. History has plenty of examples of this not working well.

There are other means of achieving the same goal. I agree that corporations should not be allowed to take this power.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:34 | Reply | Open on hachyderm.io
OpenDNA⚙️

@mattb @cmsj @ariadne @eff We are already well down that path: refusing service to LGBT+ is protected, as evidenced by multiple SCOTUS rulings. As is refusing service for partisan membership or political beliefs.

In that context, the argument here is that violently hateful anti-LGBT+ speech is uniquely privileged.

The decision has already been made about who should not be protected: the people KF is dedicated to terrorizing.

3 Sep 2023 at 15:21 | Reply | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@mattb @opendna @eff the fact that they single out “tier 1” isps in the modern internet just shows how utterly misinformed on how all of this works they actually are.

IXPs disrupted that model in the 2000s, even small regional networks are effectively transit free for most of their traffic flows.

HE’s contract terms for IP transit are the industry standard terms — don’t use the service to spam, commit crimes, conduct terroristic threats, etc.

every transit provider has these terms, they are required by regulatory frameworks that govern the telecom industry.

you are being conned by a badly written and badly researched article.

@mattb @opendna @eff the fact that they single out “tier 1” isps in the modern internet just shows how utterly misinformed on how all of this works they actually are.

IXPs disrupted that model in the 2000s, even small regional networks are effectively transit free for most of their traffic flows.

HE’s contract terms for IP transit are the industry standard terms — don’t use the service to spam, commit crimes, conduct terroristic threats, etc.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:34 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@mattb @opendna @eff by the way, HE is not a tier 1 ISP — they purchase transit from Telia to reach Cogent, for example.

IncogNET (the hosting provider used by KF) was also previously multihomed, but their other transit got terminated for the same reason — they refuse to follow industry standard practices, like enforcing a real AUP.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:37 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Thomas Guyot-Sionnest

@ariadne Then I think HE should have threatened to do the same, and block IncogNET entirely if it didn't comply.

I think the eff position only about filtering in the middle of the chain, therefore blocking your direct customer is the correct action here. It also ensures the correct parties get involved in the fight. KF (or any other customer that could be involved in this type of filtering as no one here gives damn about KF) has no mutual contact or obligations with HE...

3 Sep 2023 at 15:48 | Reply | Open on noc.social
qwertyoruiopz

@ariadne I’m curious: say IncogNET was multihomed, HE dropped the announce for KF and I was a single homed HE customer trying to access KF. Would I still be able to reach KF via HE-bought transit or would there be a situation like with IPv6 where HE cannot reach Cogent at all because they buy no v6 transit?

3 Sep 2023 at 16:54 | Reply | Open on nso.group
qwertyoruiopz

@ariadne I ask this because in my view the only bad outcome from this scenario would be HE filtering the full IPv4 internet for their non-IncogNET customers. But if all they are doing is refusing to announce a single homed customer’s range, it’s a complete nothingburger (and even in the former case it’d just make me avoid HE as a single homed upstream (which is an awful idea to begin with, case in point Cogent over IPv6), not really look at it as an attack on the constitution)

3 Sep 2023 at 17:07 | Reply | Open on nso.group
Matthew Booth

@ariadne @opendna @eff I'll take your word for it, as this is not a technical space I play in.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:37 | Reply | Open on hachyderm.io
Ariadne Conill 🐰

@mattb @opendna @eff perhaps, since internet governance is not a technical space you play in, you should not take sides then :)

3 Sep 2023 at 14:45 | Reply | Open on social.treehouse.systems
Matthew Booth

@ariadne @opendna @eff On the contrary, I think everybody should care about governance. It's boring until it's essential.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:47 | Reply | Open on hachyderm.io
OpenDNA⚙️

@mattb @ariadne @eff If not corporations, who? The US and Canadian governments? Then there are clear First Amendment issues.

Look, ISPs were blocking the websites of their own workers unions during strikes. Their right to do so is precedent. Facebook (which has monopoly position) is blocking all Canadian news to retaliate against the government.

We're not in danger of sliding down a slippery slope, we're at the bottom watching the worst people demand privileges to stay at the top.

3 Sep 2023 at 15:00 | Reply | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
OpenDNA⚙️

@mattb @ariadne @eff I listed seizures and denials of service which have not required a court order in the US or Canada for over 20 years. Most are police or administrative actions, but cutting power service is corporate.

And I noted the absurdity of seeking redress when you've been deprived of the resources to seek redress.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:09 | Reply | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
OpenDNA⚙️

@mattb @ariadne @eff Power cut-offs are less common in my home regions now that before, but only because the people legalized the illegal activities most associated with them. That didn't deprive the power companies of the authority, it made the breaches of TOS so uneconomical that few do it anymore.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:13 | Reply | Open on mastodon.sdf.org
❌❎❌ J4YC33 (They/Them) ❌❎❌

@mattb @opendna @ariadne

I see you've never had your power, cable, or water cut by the company without having legal action taken first.

That shit happens all the time. The courts are rarely involved with utility disconnects...

3 Sep 2023 at 14:48 | Reply | Open on sb17.space
Amir Livne Bar-on

@mattb @opendna @ariadne @eff the problem imo is that the criminal justice system doesn't work in this case, and i don't know why. kiwifarms has been home to serious crimes for a while now and the operators are still free to run it. there isn't even an injunction to close down the site so one service after another has to make the decision to kick them out for criminal activity, like cloudflare did last september.

3 Sep 2023 at 15:26 | Reply | Open on mathstodon.xyz
spherulitic

@mattb @opendna @ariadne @eff that’s completely the opposite of how civil asset forfeiture works. Step 1 is the police take your stuff. Then yes you can try to get redress in the courts, but also KF is welcome to operate their site within the TOS and get their traffic back.

3 Sep 2023 at 15:32 | Reply | Open on tech.lgbt
Blaidd Drwg

@ariadne @eff

Saying that corporations are responsible for following the law is not the same as saying we are trying to make them "gatekeepers", or "censors", or "arbiters".

3 Sep 2023 at 14:23 | Reply | Open on realsocial.life
Garrett Latimer

@ariadne @eff This is just like the ACLU defending the Illinois Nazis.

3 Sep 2023 at 14:38 | Reply | Open on meow.social
:verified_2:防空識別區𝒔𝒐𝒄𝟶
Stephan Schulz

@ariadne @eff I disagree. EFF is, as usual, taking the long and broad view, and they are right. As far as I can tell, KiwiFarms does not have a contractual relationship with with Hurricane Electric. So they are not bound by their TOS/AUP. I know nothing about KiwiFarms except what's in the EFF article. They sound horrible. But we do not destroy bridges because some awful people use them.

3 Sep 2023 at 15:00 | Reply | Open on fosstodon.org
fluffy 💜

@StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff This isn’t destroying a bridge, it’s putting up a checkpoint to stop drunk drivers.

3 Sep 2023 at 16:25 | Reply | Open on plush.city
Stephan Schulz

@fluffy @ariadne @eff I don't think that is a good analogy. But if we use it: Once you have the checkpoints, you can also check for black drivers, for union drivers, for communist drivers, and so on. It is a slippery slope. On the other hand, the parking lot attendant (i.e. the local hosting company) can stop just the drunk drivers from getting into the car in the first place.

3 Sep 2023 at 16:50 | Reply | Open on fosstodon.org
fluffy 💜
Stephan Schulz

@fluffy @ariadne @eff I call it conscientious, principled, and rational. I try not to let my personal disgust for some people or actions overpower my rational thoughts.

3 Sep 2023 at 17:06 | Reply | Open on fosstodon.org
fluffy 💜

@StephanSchulz @ariadne @eff ah yes, the “rationality” argument. Which makes it easy to claim that people who don’t agree with you are “irrational.”

3 Sep 2023 at 17:07 | Reply | Open on plush.city
Drew 🐘

@ariadne @eff the EFF clearly states their understanding is that KF is not a customer and would not have signed an AUP. Are you refuting that factual claim or are you suggesting that Crunchbits AUP signature makes them liable for all of their customer's use?

(for the record I'm happy to see any disruption to KF in isolation)
3 Sep 2023 at 15:22 | Reply | Open on mastodon.social
curtmack

@ariadne @eff I have no comment on the technical aspects (you clearly have a much better grasp on that than I do), but I'd like to add two points that might be persuasive to some:

1. If the concern is "fascists will use this principle against good speech in the future" - since when do fascists care about principles?
2. The speech in this case - harassment and doxxing - is itself the harm that needs to be stopped. So yes, there is a real, actionable difference between KF and other websites.

3 Sep 2023 at 16:00 | Reply | Open on floss.social
Go Up