5 ms·

This is a disaster. A very sad day for the internet. We are entering into pastor Niemoller territory here: first they came for the file-sharing websites, next t

This is a disaster. A very sad day for the internet. We are entering into pastor Niemoller territory here: first they came for the file-sharing websites, next they came for the online gambling websites, and I would guess that Bitcoin is probably next in line, and following that, Magic: the Gathering online and the MMORPGs.

nika 16y ago
I had the opportunity to see Pastor Niemoller's cell once. Out back, behind the building, they had the execution wall. Your reference to Bitcoin is apt, as the government siezed $7M in gold, silver and platinum from a political organization who was advocating the use of generic silver and gold rounds instead of depreciating paper currency.... and just a few weeks ago succeeded in railroading the leader of that organization.
- dusklight 16y ago
  links please?
gst 16y ago
No. It's not a disaster. Just the end of the .com/.net/.org era. As soon as people realize that .com/.net/.org are not neutral, but under US jurisdication, they will move to other TLDs operated in countries with more liberal laws.
- pavel_lishin 16y ago
  Laws can change. I think it's well time to start thinking about how to organize the internet so that it routes around governments even more easily.
  - peterwwillis 16y ago
    Eh. You don't have to "route around" this currently, just use a DNS resolver outside of the country that re-introduces domains which get taken out by oppressive governments. Nobody wants to do this, though, as it would destroy the fabric of the internet as we know it or something. But a simpler method would just incur more government push back in an arms race around censorship. Do what the chinese [citizens] do: go covert.
    - pavel_lishin 16y ago
      > just use a DNS resolver outside of the country that re-introduces domains which get taken out by oppressive governments. But outside of which country? You'd have to read the local news for every country in the world that currently has them, every day, if not hourly.
    - blhack 16y ago
      This is actually an interesting idea to me. Forgive me for not being very knowledgeable about the DNS, so if somebody could correct me, I would appreciate it. What happens if people start selectively paying attention to the ICANN root servers? For instance, my computer is set to use google's DNS. What happens if the DNS admins at google decide that they're going to just ignore the update from ICANN? And what happens if there is a second-tier DNS that crops up specifically to thwart attempts at messing around with the records? (Honestly, domains being 'seized' should be treated like faulty equipment. If a drive starts bailing out, you replace it. To me, it sounds like the US gov't's ability to modify the DNS at their will is a click-of-death on the DNS)
      - mburns 16y ago
        This is precisely the goal of projects like p2p-dns[1] and AlterNIC[2]. It is mostly a chicken-and-egg problem of getting users to resolve non-standard TLDs, so that those non-standard TLDs are registered to things users actually care about, etc, etc. [1] http://dot-p2p.org/ http://dot-p2p.org/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC
      - peterwwillis 16y ago
        First of all, let's be clear: the root servers are owned and operated by various entities in countries all around the world. The root zone file is the sole domain of the Department of Commerce of the United States of America. So you'd have to ignore all of them, and i'm not completely sure the US Government wouldn't force Google to apply the one correct root zone file (after all, Google is such a powerhouse you could complain of a monopoly of internet control or influence). Potential legal issues aside, what you end up with is a New Internet. Of course routes all remain the same, but nobody refers to addresses or routes: they use host names. Thus you run a huge risk of networked applications just not working, which would affect everything from entertainment to commerce to government services and god knows what else (what if medical devices in hospitals needed to retrieve a firmware upgrade and couldn't connect to the right host?). In practice there would be no technical hurdle to do this. It's simple to just configure your domain name server to include some records, leave out some records and change others. Some people do this if their ISP redirects failed lookups to some advertising-laden homepage, for example. But on a large scale, the modification of the naming system to one's personal tastes has broad-reaching negative consequences related to availability of hosts and the functional and legal consequences therein. On a personal scale (modifying only your own name server results), you get to connect to your poker site again. I prefer the latter solution. If operating systems just started including a simple GUI to modify their personal domain name caches we probably wouldn't need an alternate dns root.
- SaintMax 16y ago
  Indeed, extensions like .ME and .CO have a bright future, same for domain hacks (except for .US ones).
- varjag 16y ago
  In theory yes. In practice they move to Libya.
- jpr 16y ago
  It hardly matters what the laws are when politicians wipe their asses with the constitution.
cookiecaper 16y ago
Bitcoin is in for it as soon as it gains any reasonable traction. The government is not going to be happy about that at all. Fortunately, btc is a peer-to-peer network and should theoretically be hard to shut down. I doubt it's actually hard to shut down since the client gets its list of peers from the user list in an automatically and transparently joined IRC channel (if I understand correctly). Heh. I think, however, the domain seizures just emphasize the importance of using a system that doesn't depend on regularly constituted DNS and getting more and more P2P infrastructure in place. I2P should be looked at as particularly promising.
- weavejester 16y ago
  If the Bitcoin client cannot connect to the IRC channel, it uses an in-built list of initial nodes to connect to the P2P network. Shutting down the IRC channel via a court order wouldn't shut down the Bitcoin network. You could harvest IP addresses from the IRC channel, but you could also do that by running the client and noting down which peers you connect to. Unless you're running behind Tor or I2P, it's not hard to figure out which IP addresses have connected. However, assuming the government had this list, what would it do? It's hard to bring charges against a large number of individuals scattered throughout different jurisdictions, and historically, the US government hasn't gone after the people using alternative currencies; they'd go after the source. They could shut down the Bitcoin site - which would be quickly moved to an international domain. They could try and prosecute the lead programmers of the Bitcoin software, but this would not be particularly successful. It wouldn't stop Bitcoin, and I think it would be hard for them to show the currency as being illegal without, for instance, affecting MMO currencies as well. I figure their best move would be to shut down the currency exchanges, or at least tie them up in court long enough to damage confidence in the Bitcoin economy. However, if the exchanges win, then Bitcoin has an official seal of legality, and a huge heaping of press attention.
  - mike_esspe 16y ago
    I don't think, that prosecuting of programmers will be unsuccessful. I won't be surprised, if Gavin's programming will be described as yet another "unique form of domestic terrorism". Probably original bitcoin author remained anonymous for the fear of government's retaliation.
fuzzmeister 16y ago
Are you intentionally hyperbolizing, or do you honestly believe that the government will shut down MMORPGs? Further, I'd like to see some arguments to back up your assertion about Bitcoin. I disagree with domain seizures, but gambling sites do seem to be in violation of federal law, while Bitcoin seems to be in the clear, as it is simply a virtual good.
- jamii 16y ago
  In South Korea under-19s can't sign up for an MMORPG without their parents consent. There was also talk about imposing time limits and shutting down MMO servers during school hours but I haven't heard since I left whether this went into effect. http://kotaku.com/#!5515459/south-korea-to-impose-overnight-bans-on-mmo-gaming http://kotaku.com/#!5515459/south-korea-to-impose-overnight-...
- mycroftiv 16y ago
  I believe there is an inevitable collision between the government's desire to control, regulate, and tax commerce, and virtual economies. It is hardly a secret that MMORPG items and characters are often bought and sold using real world currency. Players in Magic Online spend real world currency to acquire digital cards, which can then be exchanged for paper cards, and many brick and mortar game stores use this as the source for cards they sell. In theory players could easily use games such as these for money laundering and tax evasion. I don't think the government will shut down MMORPGs, but I believe that government interference and regulation of game economies is inevitable as they grow. As for Bitcoin, you can research the legal history of various "digital currencies" and you will see that there have already been problems in this area. The purpose of Bitcoin, a decentralized and unregulated anonymous medium of exchange is obviously contradictory to the government's aims. It all boils down to the fact that governments want a monopoly on currencies and want to be able to monitor and tax economic activity. Digital economies are growing rapidly in size and social importance and they are no more likely to be allowed to flourish unregulated than the free sharing of copyrighted media was.

nika 16y ago

I had the opportunity to see Pastor Niemoller's cell once. Out back, behind the building, they had the execution wall. Your reference to Bitcoin is apt, as the government siezed $7M in gold, silver and platinum from a political organization who was advocating the use of generic silver and gold rounds instead of depreciating paper currency.... and just a few weeks ago succeeded in railroading the leader of that organization.

dusklight 16y ago
links please?

gst 16y ago

No. It's not a disaster. Just the end of the .com/.net/.org era. As soon as people realize that .com/.net/.org are not neutral, but under US jurisdication, they will move to other TLDs operated in countries with more liberal laws.

pavel_lishin 16y ago
Laws can change. I think it's well time to start thinking about how to organize the internet so that it routes around governments even more easily.
- peterwwillis 16y ago
  Eh. You don't have to "route around" this currently, just use a DNS resolver outside of the country that re-introduces domains which get taken out by oppressive governments. Nobody wants to do this, though, as it would destroy the fabric of the internet as we know it or something. But a simpler method would just incur more government push back in an arms race around censorship. Do what the chinese [citizens] do: go covert.
  - pavel_lishin 16y ago
    > just use a DNS resolver outside of the country that re-introduces domains which get taken out by oppressive governments. But outside of which country? You'd have to read the local news for every country in the world that currently has them, every day, if not hourly.
  - blhack 16y ago
    This is actually an interesting idea to me. Forgive me for not being very knowledgeable about the DNS, so if somebody could correct me, I would appreciate it. What happens if people start selectively paying attention to the ICANN root servers? For instance, my computer is set to use google's DNS. What happens if the DNS admins at google decide that they're going to just ignore the update from ICANN? And what happens if there is a second-tier DNS that crops up specifically to thwart attempts at messing around with the records? (Honestly, domains being 'seized' should be treated like faulty equipment. If a drive starts bailing out, you replace it. To me, it sounds like the US gov't's ability to modify the DNS at their will is a click-of-death on the DNS)
    - mburns 16y ago
      This is precisely the goal of projects like p2p-dns[1] and AlterNIC[2]. It is mostly a chicken-and-egg problem of getting users to resolve non-standard TLDs, so that those non-standard TLDs are registered to things users actually care about, etc, etc. [1] http://dot-p2p.org/ http://dot-p2p.org/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC
    - peterwwillis 16y ago
      First of all, let's be clear: the root servers are owned and operated by various entities in countries all around the world. The root zone file is the sole domain of the Department of Commerce of the United States of America. So you'd have to ignore all of them, and i'm not completely sure the US Government wouldn't force Google to apply the one correct root zone file (after all, Google is such a powerhouse you could complain of a monopoly of internet control or influence). Potential legal issues aside, what you end up with is a New Internet. Of course routes all remain the same, but nobody refers to addresses or routes: they use host names. Thus you run a huge risk of networked applications just not working, which would affect everything from entertainment to commerce to government services and god knows what else (what if medical devices in hospitals needed to retrieve a firmware upgrade and couldn't connect to the right host?). In practice there would be no technical hurdle to do this. It's simple to just configure your domain name server to include some records, leave out some records and change others. Some people do this if their ISP redirects failed lookups to some advertising-laden homepage, for example. But on a large scale, the modification of the naming system to one's personal tastes has broad-reaching negative consequences related to availability of hosts and the functional and legal consequences therein. On a personal scale (modifying only your own name server results), you get to connect to your poker site again. I prefer the latter solution. If operating systems just started including a simple GUI to modify their personal domain name caches we probably wouldn't need an alternate dns root.
SaintMax 16y ago
Indeed, extensions like .ME and .CO have a bright future, same for domain hacks (except for .US ones).
varjag 16y ago
In theory yes. In practice they move to Libya.
jpr 16y ago
It hardly matters what the laws are when politicians wipe their asses with the constitution.

cookiecaper 16y ago

Bitcoin is in for it as soon as it gains any reasonable traction. The government is not going to be happy about that at all. Fortunately, btc is a peer-to-peer network and should theoretically be hard to shut down. I doubt it's actually hard to shut down since the client gets its list of peers from the user list in an automatically and transparently joined IRC channel (if I understand correctly). Heh. I think, however, the domain seizures just emphasize the importance of using a system that doesn't depend on regularly constituted DNS and getting more and more P2P infrastructure in place. I2P should be looked at as particularly promising.

weavejester 16y ago
If the Bitcoin client cannot connect to the IRC channel, it uses an in-built list of initial nodes to connect to the P2P network. Shutting down the IRC channel via a court order wouldn't shut down the Bitcoin network. You could harvest IP addresses from the IRC channel, but you could also do that by running the client and noting down which peers you connect to. Unless you're running behind Tor or I2P, it's not hard to figure out which IP addresses have connected. However, assuming the government had this list, what would it do? It's hard to bring charges against a large number of individuals scattered throughout different jurisdictions, and historically, the US government hasn't gone after the people using alternative currencies; they'd go after the source. They could shut down the Bitcoin site - which would be quickly moved to an international domain. They could try and prosecute the lead programmers of the Bitcoin software, but this would not be particularly successful. It wouldn't stop Bitcoin, and I think it would be hard for them to show the currency as being illegal without, for instance, affecting MMO currencies as well. I figure their best move would be to shut down the currency exchanges, or at least tie them up in court long enough to damage confidence in the Bitcoin economy. However, if the exchanges win, then Bitcoin has an official seal of legality, and a huge heaping of press attention.
- mike_esspe 16y ago
  I don't think, that prosecuting of programmers will be unsuccessful. I won't be surprised, if Gavin's programming will be described as yet another "unique form of domestic terrorism". Probably original bitcoin author remained anonymous for the fear of government's retaliation.

fuzzmeister 16y ago

Are you intentionally hyperbolizing, or do you honestly believe that the government will shut down MMORPGs? Further, I'd like to see some arguments to back up your assertion about Bitcoin. I disagree with domain seizures, but gambling sites do seem to be in violation of federal law, while Bitcoin seems to be in the clear, as it is simply a virtual good.

jamii 16y ago
In South Korea under-19s can't sign up for an MMORPG without their parents consent. There was also talk about imposing time limits and shutting down MMO servers during school hours but I haven't heard since I left whether this went into effect. http://kotaku.com/#!5515459/south-korea-to-impose-overnight-bans-on-mmo-gaming http://kotaku.com/#!5515459/south-korea-to-impose-overnight-...
mycroftiv 16y ago
I believe there is an inevitable collision between the government's desire to control, regulate, and tax commerce, and virtual economies. It is hardly a secret that MMORPG items and characters are often bought and sold using real world currency. Players in Magic Online spend real world currency to acquire digital cards, which can then be exchanged for paper cards, and many brick and mortar game stores use this as the source for cards they sell. In theory players could easily use games such as these for money laundering and tax evasion. I don't think the government will shut down MMORPGs, but I believe that government interference and regulation of game economies is inevitable as they grow. As for Bitcoin, you can research the legal history of various "digital currencies" and you will see that there have already been problems in this area. The purpose of Bitcoin, a decentralized and unregulated anonymous medium of exchange is obviously contradictory to the government's aims. It all boils down to the fact that governments want a monopoly on currencies and want to be able to monitor and tax economic activity. Digital economies are growing rapidly in size and social importance and they are no more likely to be allowed to flourish unregulated than the free sharing of copyrighted media was.