3 ms·

You can access the servers by their IP adresses. The filtering will be DNS-based

• bjelkeman-again 17y ago
  Do you have a link for that information?
  • rincewind 17y ago
    This is the bill(in German): http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/128/1612850.pdf http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/128/1612850.pdf relevant part: Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domain- namen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetpro- tokoll-Adressen unterbleibt. my translation: The blocking will at least take place on the level of fully-qualified domain names, the resolution of which into IP-adresses will remain undone.
  • Sujan 17y ago
    I do, but it's German: (2) Für die Sperrung dürfen vollqualifizierte Domainnamen, Internetprotokoll-Adressen und Zieladressen von Telemedienangeboten verwendet werden. Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domainnamen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetprotokoll-Adressen unterbleibt. Source: http://www.zugerschwg.com/ http://www.zugerschwg.com/ The important part is "Die Sperrung erfolgt mindestens auf der Ebene der vollqualifizierten Domainnamen, deren Auflösung in die zugehörigen Internetprotokoll-Adressen unterbleibt." what means "The blocking is done at least at the level of the fully qualified domain names, whose resolution to ip adresses is omitted.". Still searching for a native English source.
    • pasbesoin 17y ago
      Without (yet) looking at the remaining text, "mindestens" causes me hesitation. "At least" or "at a minimum" does not seem to proscribe additional filtering, e.g. of IP addresses as opposed to DNS lookups. Perhaps the use here has a colloquial or legal definition I'm not understanding. But to me, this language sounds like the proverbial slippery slope. So, will providers work to restrict adherence to the minimum, or will they of themselves or in response to additional pressure go further? Or will the law go further by expanding the scope of this clause? I have no sympathy for the original crimes involved. I also have little trust in legislated censorship and in the control and mission of the same remaining undistorted. I also am uncertain whether it is an effective or appropriate means of addressing the situation. If only an approved government agency can research the situation, will the public be adequately informed? Democracy rests upon (relatively) equal access to information. What does legislation like this do to that basis?
      • Sujan 17y ago
        > If only an approved government agency can research the > situation, will the public be adequately informed? No, they will try to keep the lists a secret. Of course they will fail, as did all the other countries with their filter and censorship lists, but the government will try to not tell its people and destroy democracy, one step at a time.
• jacquesm 17y ago
  That won't work for sites on virtual hosts.
  • Sujan 17y ago
    Then you can use a foreign or even your own DNS server. Avoiding the censorship methods is not the problem. The problem is that a democratic country installs such censorship mechanisms though in its constitution you can read "censorship doesn't take place".
    • jacquesm 17y ago
      I agree, that is a problem. The 'think of the children' or 'be afraid of the terrorists' argument will at some point probably be used to outlaw encryption and to make it mandatory that you sign in to the internet. No more anonymizers, proxies etc.
      • tetha 17y ago
        there are already questions in our (im from germany) government to extend this censorship to 'killing games' and such. great fun. I guess it becomes time to throw rocks again.
      • dan_the_welder 17y ago
        Sounds impossible to implement. Arms race anyone?
• arthurk 17y ago
  Right. What I wanted so say is that you won't be able to just click the warning away.
  • Sujan 17y ago
    You're right, this is not very clear in the article.