3 ms·
If nothing else the long term effect of this is simply to harden the internet infrastructure against govt. interference. It's sorta like saving electricity. We
by bruce511 15y ago
If nothing else the long term effect of this is simply to harden the internet infrastructure against govt. interference.
It's sorta like saving electricity. We're mostly pretty inefficient so it's easy to make instant savings. For example switching from incandescent light bulbs, putting in geyser blankets, and so on, are all implemented easily, cheaply, and have an instant material effect. But it's a one time saving. It delays the inevitable, it bys time, but it doesn't solve the root problem.
In the same way fiddling with root dns servers is easy, quick, and (temporarily) effective. It's a one-time solution though. If this carries on then people will simply work around the problem. We're already seeing alternative root dns servers, alternative top level (non-US) domains and so on. If the govt. want to waste their effectiveness on such mundane things as movies and music, then so be it.
But every time they do it they just encourage more and more people to work around the problem. And the solution is likely to be (already is) more resistant to this form of explicit interference.
The Internet is a genie not going back into the bottle. It is not something that can be controlled, censored, or governed in the traditional sense. As music and movie executives come to terms with what the digital part of 'Digital Revolution' really means, the govt is starting to learn what the real meaning of Revolution is.
The times they are a changin' (again).
- Luyt 15y agoCircumventing government DNS seizures with alternative DNS root servers will only be a temporary stopgap. It's only a matter of time before the governments will mandate (by law) that every router should have a way to block certain IPs and MACs, and also offer a backdoor for government agencies to configure the router; hardware which cannot comply with this will be outlawed and illegal to operate. With that in place, government agencies can block any IP or MAC they want, without having to deal with DNS.
- incomethax 15y agoIn a world of virtualized services, blocking IP or MAC will also only get you so far. It's fairly easy to switch servers onto a different IP address, a different MAC address by simply using a different machine or configuration. DNS is the most vulnerable part of the stack simply because its the one thing in the stack that is centralized (loosely speaking).
- Luyt 15y agoIs it really that easy? Both my home ADSL as my datacenter servers have permanent IP adresses, which I can't change. I could change the MAC of the network interfaces, but not the IP address. Or do you mean going through a VPN of some kind?
- lsc 15y ago>Or do you mean going through a VPN of some kind? the VPN of some kind is the easy way to do it, yes. Setting up a new VPN provider is pretty trivial. I could do so tomorrow; all I'd need is one of those visa prepaid cards to do so anonymously. But the point is that yeah, sure, the government could mandate that we block certain IPs but it would be difficult for the government to do and fairly easy for targets to get around - going after the centralized naming resources is going to be much easier, and is going to produce much less resistance. It's true that there have been alternate dns root servers for some time now; it's not a technically difficult thing to set up. But it is a huge problem of trust. It's very difficult to design a system that is resistant to governmental pressure but is still trustworthy enough that when I type in a site name I can be fairly certain I'm getting the IP address for that site and not a pretender.