6 ms·

Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney G

Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)

dissident 15y ago
I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems have been fixed in the Manager's amendment. DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic caching servers and stifles DNSSEC. If people move to foreign DNS (or local caching servers), which is incredibly easy, the entire thing is circumvented. But a tricky side-effect takes place: the system is now balkanized. Servers in the U.S. believe the naming system to resolve to one IP, and servers everywhere else resolve to something completely different. This balkanizing effect can break the effectiveness of CDNs, can congest Internet traffic, and overall reduces the credibility of the naming system. Passing SOPA would mean other countries would follow in the same footsteps. Once every country believes the delegation chain can resolve to whatever they want to, what is the point in an international naming system? These are only some of the problems with DNS blacklisting -- nevermind the security problems -- which are not worth it especially considering it is so easily circumvented. Additional problems with the bill, such as the vague wording which may consider Tor a tool for "circumventing" DNS blacklists and, therefore, illegal, demonstrate a huge lack of forward thinking and an unsustainable approach to copyright enforcement. The doomsday scenario is that government sticks its foot in Internet policy and communication and pretends it actually has the reasonable capability to prevent piracy. It will never have that capability without large-scale violations of privacy. There are also a good amount of talks regarding the precedent SOPA may have for general purpose computing and a whole host of other sensitive topics. I don't think it's responsible to just point at provisions in the bill and say "well it seems to add enough oversight". Besides, the bill encourages preemptive takedowns by providing immunity. The tech industry behaviors that will result would be devastating.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  I think you have great points but I don't believe they sufficiently support the doomsday freak-out I'm witnessing. DNS blacklisting is already happening in the US and all over the world (ICE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Intellectual_Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En... and DNSBL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL). I admit we are already on a slippery slope here with blacklisting, but I think most of your DNS comments could be attributed to failures in the design of DNS (and CDNs) themselves. If you want trust, security, and prevention from censorship (as I do too), DNS is not your answer. I hope namecoin better address these issues (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin). If you are scared of censorship, don't rely on infrastructure that is owned by parties you don't trust. SOPA supporters must know this will not stop piracy (the bill is contradictorily named, I know), but surely, it would minimize the piracy and counterfeiting that effects the non-tech-savvy American masses. And I truly believe that is their intent. Personally, I don't think we should be legislating the Internet at all, but we've already started, and although future legislation on this slippery slope could be devastating, this bill seems to be fairly neutered. Good issues are being brought up with the discussion of SOPA, but SOPA itself is not the end of the internet.
  - dissident 15y ago
    Couldn't be more wrong, sorry. The ICE seizures are perfectly fine because they target the delegation chain directly -- they are actually seizing the domain from a registrar or TLD authority with control over it within the chain. They are not a DNS blacklist and it does not interfere with caching servers. SOPA attempts to target names which are not within U.S. jurisdiction by asking caching servers maintained by ISPs to refuse resolution of names where the delegation chain does not cede authority to entities within U.S. jurisdiction. This is an unprecedented technique for censoring content online. DNSBL is absolutely not what you think it is, I'd recommend reading that wikipedia article more carefully. It is a voluntary blacklist which is implemented by IRC servers and mail software, but does not force cache servers to resolve names differently or anything close to what you're suggesting. It's just a list of names "you shouldn't trust" but not a censorship/redirection system. There are no design flaws in the way CDNs work either, I don't know where you're getting that. SOPA harms CDNs by removing the efficiency achieved through geotargetted name resolution (something provided by caching servers).
Zirro 15y ago
"Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)" And foreign sites aren't important?
- thebigshane 15y ago
  I didn't mean to imply they weren't. But I guarantee that the issue wouldn't be making such a splash on tech-savvy sites if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) were affected and that the only effects to those sites are that they are removed from US DNS systems and US advertising funding.
  - dissident 15y ago
    > if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) I'm sorry, but this reeks of complete ignorance. I don't think you're qualified to argue for SOPA.
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?
      - tobylane 15y ago
        Useful foreign sites? BBC accepts user comments in some areas, someone posts copyrigh material to one of them and a court order is issued before a BBC mod takes it down? If a DNS block is made then, how long will it last, and how many people would it reach anyway?
        thebigshane 15y ago
        Luckily, the BBC would not fall under this definition: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only lim- ited purpose or use other than, or is mar- keted by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in viola- tion of— [...some existing laws...]

dissident 15y ago

I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems have been fixed in the Manager's amendment. DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic caching servers and stifles DNSSEC. If people move to foreign DNS (or local caching servers), which is incredibly easy, the entire thing is circumvented. But a tricky side-effect takes place: the system is now balkanized. Servers in the U.S. believe the naming system to resolve to one IP, and servers everywhere else resolve to something completely different. This balkanizing effect can break the effectiveness of CDNs, can congest Internet traffic, and overall reduces the credibility of the naming system. Passing SOPA would mean other countries would follow in the same footsteps. Once every country believes the delegation chain can resolve to whatever they want to, what is the point in an international naming system? These are only some of the problems with DNS blacklisting -- nevermind the security problems -- which are not worth it especially considering it is so easily circumvented. Additional problems with the bill, such as the vague wording which may consider Tor a tool for "circumventing" DNS blacklists and, therefore, illegal, demonstrate a huge lack of forward thinking and an unsustainable approach to copyright enforcement. The doomsday scenario is that government sticks its foot in Internet policy and communication and pretends it actually has the reasonable capability to prevent piracy. It will never have that capability without large-scale violations of privacy. There are also a good amount of talks regarding the precedent SOPA may have for general purpose computing and a whole host of other sensitive topics. I don't think it's responsible to just point at provisions in the bill and say "well it seems to add enough oversight". Besides, the bill encourages preemptive takedowns by providing immunity. The tech industry behaviors that will result would be devastating.

thebigshane 15y ago
I think you have great points but I don't believe they sufficiently support the doomsday freak-out I'm witnessing. DNS blacklisting is already happening in the US and all over the world (ICE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Intellectual_Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En... and DNSBL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL). I admit we are already on a slippery slope here with blacklisting, but I think most of your DNS comments could be attributed to failures in the design of DNS (and CDNs) themselves. If you want trust, security, and prevention from censorship (as I do too), DNS is not your answer. I hope namecoin better address these issues (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin). If you are scared of censorship, don't rely on infrastructure that is owned by parties you don't trust. SOPA supporters must know this will not stop piracy (the bill is contradictorily named, I know), but surely, it would minimize the piracy and counterfeiting that effects the non-tech-savvy American masses. And I truly believe that is their intent. Personally, I don't think we should be legislating the Internet at all, but we've already started, and although future legislation on this slippery slope could be devastating, this bill seems to be fairly neutered. Good issues are being brought up with the discussion of SOPA, but SOPA itself is not the end of the internet.
- dissident 15y ago
  Couldn't be more wrong, sorry. The ICE seizures are perfectly fine because they target the delegation chain directly -- they are actually seizing the domain from a registrar or TLD authority with control over it within the chain. They are not a DNS blacklist and it does not interfere with caching servers. SOPA attempts to target names which are not within U.S. jurisdiction by asking caching servers maintained by ISPs to refuse resolution of names where the delegation chain does not cede authority to entities within U.S. jurisdiction. This is an unprecedented technique for censoring content online. DNSBL is absolutely not what you think it is, I'd recommend reading that wikipedia article more carefully. It is a voluntary blacklist which is implemented by IRC servers and mail software, but does not force cache servers to resolve names differently or anything close to what you're suggesting. It's just a list of names "you shouldn't trust" but not a censorship/redirection system. There are no design flaws in the way CDNs work either, I don't know where you're getting that. SOPA harms CDNs by removing the efficiency achieved through geotargetted name resolution (something provided by caching servers).

Zirro 15y ago

"Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)" And foreign sites aren't important?

thebigshane 15y ago
I didn't mean to imply they weren't. But I guarantee that the issue wouldn't be making such a splash on tech-savvy sites if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) were affected and that the only effects to those sites are that they are removed from US DNS systems and US advertising funding.
- dissident 15y ago
  > if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) I'm sorry, but this reeks of complete ignorance. I don't think you're qualified to argue for SOPA.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?
    - tobylane 15y ago
      Useful foreign sites? BBC accepts user comments in some areas, someone posts copyrigh material to one of them and a court order is issued before a BBC mod takes it down? If a DNS block is made then, how long will it last, and how many people would it reach anyway?
      - thebigshane 15y ago
        Luckily, the BBC would not fall under this definition: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only lim- ited purpose or use other than, or is mar- keted by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in viola- tion of— [...some existing laws...]