New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Aurologic accused of being a major actor in enabling cybercrime
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That is standard western propaganda. There are similar restrictions in the western countries, for example, you forget very cynical propaganda about COVID-19. Propaganda and censorship in Western countries not only exists, but also uses not less volume than listed by you above countries. Just use other ideologies.
It's nothing new. It's an old human story. Some Christians fought against each other, some Muslims fought each other. One nation tried to destroy another nation. The worst crimes were committed in the name of good ideas.
How’s your answer related to censorship in mentioned countries?
Which part?
Look, I get the neutrality argument. Infrastructure providers shouldn't be playing content police, and network neutrality is genuinely important for keeping the internet open. Nobody wants ISPs deciding what's acceptable traffic based on their own moral compass.
But there's neutrality, and then there's whatever Aurologic is doing.
Real neutrality means treating all traffic equally and not discriminating based on content. It doesn't mean you get to ignore every red flag as long as customers pay their invoices on time. Neutrality requires enforcing your own terms of service consistently, not selectively looking away when convenient.
The issue isn't that Aurologic serves controversial customers. The issue is the pattern. When your network repeatedly shows up in security reports about malicious infrastructure, when problematic networks treat you as a safe harbor specifically because of your light enforcement, that's not neutrality anymore.
Neutrality is "we don't discriminate based on content." What we're seeing here looks more like "we don't act unless absolutely forced to." Those sound similar but they're fundamentally different positions. One is a principled stance about internet freedom. The other is a liability mitigation strategy that happens to be very profitable.
There's a reason certain types of hosting providers cluster around specific upstreams. They go where the enforcement is lightest and the questions are fewest. That's not because those upstreams are more "neutral." It's because they've established a reputation for inaction.
We can support infrastructure neutrality as a concept while still recognizing when someone is hiding behind it to avoid difficult business decisions. Those aren't contradictory positions.
I cannot say anything about Iran or China or North Korea.
In Russia, there are a lot of new laws that increase the problem for everyone who provides and uses the internet. You need to be very careful about what you say, what you repost, and even what you use as an illustration in your posts.
That's bad, but it's a worldwide trend, unfortunately.
Counting down til this thread is closed
Now accepting bets
It will not be closed. There is no miss-information in first post. Derail and deflection is minor. Discussion is still civilized without personal insults. Back on topic:
Does business has any moral obligation to stop accepting money from criminal structures? I say yes, but my business does not depend entirely on criminal entities and lawlessness. If I would own aurologic, I guess I defend it as it would be my income source.
Eh, everything is so subjective. I’am sick of my-self.
I don't get how censorship is relevant to cybercrime accusations.
Yeah, isn't it lovely to severely damage someone's business based on mere, and biased at that, allegations?
Of course people like you call the "reasoning" behind it sound.
Now assume that some day it turns out that @Calin did not do what was alleged and that actually his (alleged) victim (some shady indian provider) is the bad party. Then what? Give Calin back his provider tag and maybe add a short "Sorry"? What about the massive damage Calin suffered?
Before you go amok again: I was and am not saying that Calin was/is innocent! What I said and say was/is that mere allegations, no matter by whom and no matter how many feel they likely are true, are absolutely no basis for harming someone. For that a proper investigation which may or may not lead to a court case is needed.
And that's also what I criticize here in this thread which is based on mere allegations.
As for your ramblings about me, I'll keep it short. I don't care what you "think" about me but I'll flag you for repeated ad hominems anyway, simply because they harm our community.
Not sure where you got the understanding that you speak for the community considering not a single active member agrees with yout takes anywhere in this whole thread
From what I see, this case has become hot only because Aeza or someone related to Aeza is listed on the ASN list.
Returning to neutrality: US and UK sanction is a government decision made for "national interest" reasons. If those people are so dangerous, then open a criminal investigation and let the court decide whether the facts are real or not. Based on the court's decision, the provider can take appropriate action.
I can think of lots of other safe havens for pedophiles, hackers, and pirate actors in the world that have never been sanctioned at the government level or even published in the media. Media just need to be heated up and everything related to Russia is paid for very well, which is why this case became hot.
If governments were interested in negative coverage of China, media would publish a lot of negative information about China.
Nothing personal, just business. But in results, Aurologic, as a normal upstream provider, is under attack for no reason. They just do their job and do not break any local laws. If you want to say that the US and UK sanctions override German law, then that's your opinion, but I will be surprised if it's true.
PS. BTW, Aeza's top managers remain in Russian pre-trial detention, and the crime investigation has not yet ended. The company itself, as far as I know, is still active.
Not sure why the Russia crowd feels this need to defend Aurologic given Russian state don’t seem particulsrely happy with Aeza either
free speech allow
western propaganda ignor
This discussion is about cyber-crime. It has nothing to do with ideologies or activists 🙄
Because Russians have been fighting the state for centuries and they know very well how deceitful, corrupt and bureaucratic it can be, but this is their fight and they don't need your help in it.
Wake up and smell the coffee when you think about your governments...
Hence why Aeza is facing legal issues in RUSSIA. They’d never do that if it was all western propaganda. Yet the Ukraine-Russia war thread folks just come scrabling to defend anything that just smells a bit of Russia no matter how corrupt or even if they’re actively being prosecuted in Russia. It doesn’t make sense but trying to make sense of them is quite literally impossible.
I’m just glad they participate in this thread as it shows everyone what kind of audience Aurologic is meant for, and, it bumps the initial report to top of front page
Why do you spam unsolicited lies?
There is specialized topic about all political agenda. Do not derail topic. Stay out of politics and war.
I do not send spam. I want to stop crazy activists.
You already have a thread for debating the west and Russia and it’s not this one
My question is why certain people here are allowed to post derailing multi paragraph rants but other can't even react to them? Double standards shouldn't be tolerated.
Because trying to get some people to not derail anything that have to do with Russia is literally impossible. They live in the Ukraine war thread and only participate in other threads where they can discuss the same thing. It IS a double standard but unless LET mods actually see an issue with this, we have to not engage as it would mean a 100 % chance of derailment.
fuck it
whos online?
reakt it
Really? But then, why do people ask the Aurologist to do something illegal under German law? They use various explanations to justify why the Aurologists must do something, including reliance on US and UK sanctions as well as moral, ethical and other reasons unrelated to cybercrime. The solution is actually very simple - open a criminal investigation, obtain a court order, and follow local laws. That is exactly what the Aurologics say.
Business cannot perform court roles. Businesses must follow legal procedures.
A business can absolutely deny clients it deems too high a risk. If it wants to.
In Germany you would be arrested for making this kind of accusation without evidence. Fined for a first offense, and jailed if you do it again. This kind of lawsuit is actually not very noteworthy in Germany and would not be reported on by any media.
A "bulletproof host" is not one that simply follows the law and requires evidence for their abuse complaints. Maybe in the USA, where it's normal to ban a customer upon receiving an abuse report, regardless of validity, that is considered bulletproof when they actually check the reports for evidence.
Germany has a strict legal culture. The people who do a crime are liable and the people who don't do a crime are not liable. Germany also has a strict privacy culture. Intercepting everyone's traffic to see if they are phishing is punishable worse than phishing. If you think someone is phishing, you go to the police, and if the police need a lawful intercept from the provider, they will talk to the provider and give them a legal order to do that. It must not be done pre-emptively.
Do everything through legal channels, and don't try to cancel-culture people you don't like. If Aurologic is actually doing something illegal and you report them, the police will come down on them like a sack of bricks. They will go to jail. So why don't you report them instead of complaining here? The only explanation is that you don't actually have any evidence.
Additionally, there is strict liability protection for a network operator against the traffic passing through his network. Of course he must co-operate with police if there is an investigation. When there is not a police investigation, he is not required to create one - that is what the actual police are for.
Nor does your landlord have the right to barge into your apartment in case your roommate is dealing drugs. If they think that is happening, they must tell the police and let the police handle it. Police may then raid the apartment and see if there is drug dealing, if they think it is warranted and a judge signs off on it. It is the same with networks.
Finally! A popcorn drama!