[AusNOG] NBN must avoid becoming 'failed state'

[Mark Newton]

On 21/09/2010, at 10:19 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:

> You've failed to respond to substantive points/questions raised on the actual topic at hand,

No, I haven't.

I've addressed the substantiative points/questions raised on the
actual topic at hand by pouring water on some of the rhetoric that's
been used to support it.

You don't agree;  Fine.  I'll let the disconnect between the last
couple of decades worth of security doomsaying and the actual 
impact on the overwhelming majority of real people speak to my case,
and leave it at that.

> One perhaps couldn't be blamed for reaching the conclusion that your mind is already made up on this topic, and that you believe anyone who disagrees with you to be a dolt, a villain, or both.

See, that's an example of a way of wording a personal attack in a 
way that allows you to deny that you ever made it if challenged.
You don't think I believe anyone who disagrees with me is a dolt,
a villain, or both;  You just can't be blamed for reaching that
conclusion.  "I don't actually think that," you could say, "it's 
just a mistake anyone could make."

Whatever floats your boat, Roland.  Pretty sure you'd never say 
that to someone face to face.  And just for the record, in case
there are some imaginary readers who might be confused, I don't
believe anything of the sort.

> You're entitled to your views, of course, but note that a) it's quite possible to disagree with people without demonizing them, and b) some of the people you're keen to tar as being somehow over-the-top have long-established reputations in this industry for being otherwise.

Meanwhile, when challenged on whether you really meant some of 
the over-the-top things you said upthread you pointed the finger at
Jason Bailey.  The "he started it," defence.

If I've focussed on something you consider to be an off the cuff
remark, it's only because you made variations of it on at least three
separate occasions.

I'm not demonizing you, and I understand your long-established 
reputation.

But a reputation doesn't shield anyone from criticism.  

The very first message you sent in reply to me in this thread (19 Sep
4:41pm) had examples of the hype I've been criticising:  You painted a
picture of people "being unable to access their bank Web sites to
pay their bills, download or upload content, VPN into their offices,
buy houses because their credit has been ruined by identity thieves,
profit from their intellectual efforts because they've been subject
to corporate espionage," and told me that the sky has already
actually fallen.

The events depicted are exaggerations: Nobody will be "unable to
access their bank websites to pay their bills," on a sufficiently
permanent basis to cause the bills to fall overdue, and affected
people could just pay their bills at the post office anyway.  And
while some peoples' credit will be ruined by fraud (online or off!),
our societies have mechanisms to recover so that victims can continue
to buy houses.

I'd argue that while the probability of any of those events happening
isn't zero, the consequences of their realization is mostly confined to
"inconvenience," rather than "economic collapse," a rational risk
analysis would place them at the low-to-negligible end of the scale,
and that the sky is still firmly fastened above our heads.

In response to that low-to-negligible risk, your presentation 
repeatedly asserts the necessity for monitoring up to layer-7.
You're (inaccurately) painting NBNCo as a part of the Government,
and advocating pervasive surveillance, in a country that doesn't
have any civil rights law and therefore has literally no defensive
mechanisms which a citizen can use to defend herself from opsec
threats posed by governmental action -- And, in the ensuing
discussion thread, arguing that disconnection of entire ISPs from
the nation's monopoly access network is a legitimate response for
NBNCo to take.

So I reckon criticism is perfectly legitimate, and that it's 
disappointing that you've answered it by upping the rhetoric and
then finishing up with a personal attack and an appeal to your
own authority to cast doubt on the questioning from first principles.

>> I suggest that everyone tone it down a notch.
> 
> It's a wise man who listens to his own advice.

... says the guy who just "toned it up" by adding plausibly-deniable
personal attacks to the mix ...

> ;>

... and finishes it all off with a smiley.  "Ha ha, only serious."

I'm done with this thread.

  - mark

--
Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org  (H)
Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223