"A degree in economics is not needed to know that if the damages of something is causing x2 the amount that can be spent to avoid the damages - then half of the amount should be spent."
The questions are: damages caused to whom and amount to be spent by whom (& who is going to make them)? If it were a simple case of weighing the aggregate costs of attacks against the aggregate costs of implementation of mitigation, then we would have seen universal implementation of BCP38[1] two decades ago. Unfortunately, we don't live in a child's mind where things are simple. In reality the parties incurring the costs of attacks are not the same as those that aren't implementing the solutions to prevent them from occurring. If your neighbor has a credit card debt of $20k on which he's paying 18% interest, and you have savings of $20k on which you are receiving 2% interest, then with your logic you should immediately pay off your neighbors' debt, because that'd be cheaper for you both, collectively. But of obviously you wouldn't do this, because you're NOT a collective (your neighbors' wallet/bank account and yours are not the same) and thus you both need to be considered separately. You don't need a degree in economics to realise this, just a shred of common sense suffices. If every network configured their own equipment as well as they wish others would, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Fact is, they won't. And getting someone that has already spent time and/or money on configuring their own equipment correctly to pay for the privilege of not getting attacked by the equipment of someone else that is either too lazy or cheap to do so is going to be a tall order. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38 -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Elad Cohen <e...@netstyle.io> Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2020 18:12 To: Owen DeLong Cc: Shane Ronan; North American Network Operators' Group Subject: [SPAM-MS] Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election > Me: > "A degree in economics is not needed to know that if the damages of something > is causing x2 the amount that can be spent to avoid the damages - then half > of the amount should be spent." > > Toma: > > A degree in economics is not needed [..] > "Which is the common thing to say by the ones who don't have it." > > You: > "simply wrong on legitimate technical grounds" > > > You are not a bigotry or hatred, you are just an imbecile. > ________________________________ > From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:04 PM > To: Elad Cohen <e...@netstyle.io> > Cc: Töma Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com>; Shane Ronan > <sh...@ronan-online.com>; North American Network Operators' Group > <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election > > I don’t see hate. I see legitimate technical disagreement with your > hair-brained schemes. > > Perhaps, when a large collection of people with actual engineering experience > and deep knowledge tell you that you are simply wrong on legitimate technical > grounds, it would be wiser to rethink your position than to accuse them of > bigotry and hatred. > > Just a thought. > > Owen > > On May 13, 2020, at 16:48, Elad Cohen <e...@netstyle.io> wrote: > > > You start your posts with Peace but your posts are full of hate. > ________________________________ > From: Töma Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:17 AM > To: Elad Cohen <e...@netstyle.io> > Cc: Shane Ronan <sh...@ronan-online.com>; North American Network Operators' > Group <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election > > Peace, > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Elad Cohen <e...@netstyle.io> wrote: > > A degree in economics is not needed [..] > > Which is the common thing to say by the ones who don't have it. > > I think, dixi. > > -- > Töma
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
