Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea

from the read-and-learn dept

Mon, Mar 21st 2011 12:34pm — Mike Masnick

If you don't know who Paul Vixie is, you should. When Vixie speaks about something concerning the underlying state of the internet -- or, more specifically, a ridiculously stupid government plan to do something involving the underlying state of the internet, you should listen. On that front, Vixie is now explaining why the proposed COICA bill is incredibly short-sighted and will fail miserably. He focuses on the requirements to block sites at the DNS level that the Justice Department has declared to be "dedicated to infringing content." As Vixie notes, people who don't understand the internet will think that this will stop access to pirated material. People who understand how the internet works realize what it will really do is drive people to alternative DNS systems. He lays out the rather likely scenario of what happens the second COICA passes, in which an alternative DNS system is set up, perhaps by folks associated with The Pirate Bay, and set up in a way that is compelling:

First, they'd decide in advance to mirror the IANA DNS system as closely as possible. Anything that appeared in the IANA DNS system would automatically and instantaneously appear in the Pirate Bay DNS system. If ICANN goes ahead and creates a lot of new TLDs then all of those new TLDs would appear in the Pirate Bay DNS system as well, all pointing at ICANN's chosen registrars. In other words no existing DNS content would be overridden (or dare I say: "pirated".)

Second, they'd pick some new TLD that they wanted to create in the Pirate Bay DNS system that would serve their business needs and would be extremely unlikely to ever conflict with any future IANA TLD. For this I'm thinking .PIRATE or .PIRATEBAY or .ARGHHH but that's a decision best left up to the artistic team. For now let's assume that they chose .PIRATE so that their second level domain names would be content names like TORRENTS.PIRATE or ITS-A-WONDERFUL-LIFE.PIRATE.

It goes on from there. I won't go through all the details he lays out (go there and read it yourself), but he basically concludes that this can be done quickly and cheaply. Of course, he may not know that plans for something along these lines have already been in motion for some time.

His basic point is that COICA won't work. At all. In fact, the growth and acceptance of such alternative DNS systems will break a big part of the internet, potentially in dangerous ways:

My greatest worry is what people will do to bypass all this junk or to prevent other people from bypassing it. My fellow humans are a proud and occasionally adversarial bunch and they don't like being told what they can't do or what they have to do. The things we'll all be doing to bypass the local DNS restrictions imposed by our coffee shops or our governments or our ISPs will break everything. Where this ends is with questions like "which DNS system are you using?" and "which DNS systems is your TLD in?" which in other words means that where this ends is a world without universal naming. We adopted DNS to get universal naming, and today we have universal naming except inside Network Address Translation (NAT) borders. Universal naming is one of the reasons for the Internet's success and dominance. If we're going to start doing stuff like COICA then we should have stuck with a "hosts file" on every Internet connected computer and let every connected device decide for itself what names it recognized.

So his recommendation is not to even try with COICA, but he recognizes the US government seems to want to move forward with it. He's pretty clearly warning that it's going to be a huge mistake with tremendous unintended consequences. Now, the only question is whether or not anyone in the US government will actually listen, or will they blithely move forward not realizing the almost obvious reaction to their initial actions? As so often happens with governments, they seem to forget that any move causes a reaction. COICA is a big move that most people pushing for it do not understand at all.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: break the internet, coica, dns, paul vixie, unintended consequences

81 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:38pm

COICA the after party ....
After COICA passes there will be a huge pig roast held by RIAA. Much alcohol and cocaine will be consumed. In the alcohol and drug induced frenzy that follows. Effigies of men dressed in pirate garb will be burned at the stake. Each attendee will be given three balls to dunk the midget pirate. Cannons will be fired at paper mache pirate ships. The grand finale will be the burning of a 50 foot tall Jolly Roger. Followed by the after after party where a roman style orgy will take place. Sheep will run scared. Leaded wine drinking executive will chase hookers dressed in togas.

Then the inevitable hang over will occur.

Fast forward two months. The internet will be a different place, with parts of it run by idealistic free speech loving, rum drinking pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aj, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re: COICA the after party ....
  I hold you responsible for all this cola on my screens Hephaestus!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re: COICA the after party ....
  I hold you responsible for all this cola on my screens Hephaestus!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re: COICA the after party ....
    Glad I could bring a little joy into your life and a well needed screen cleaning.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:40pm

There have been any number of "alternate DNS" systems over the last 15 years, and they all fail in the end. They have an added benefit of the old "divide and seperate" mentality, where people are forced to choose between X or Y, and when it comes down to it, they want their X way more than they wanted the pirated Y.

If the pirate types want to take it all private, more power to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, because science knows it would be waaay too complicated to query more than one DNS service.
  
  :eyeroll:
  
  So, you've never heard of Open-DNS or Google DNS translations services? Just to name to 2 that come to mind with no effort...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So the US government says "thanks, but we already have a DNS system we like", and blocks the pirate one. Then what?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      At a guess, either a huge number of mirrors will pop up operated by TPB and their fans, or a system is used to access it that doesn't depend on DNS.
      
      DNS is essentially a convenience to allow easier access to sites for human beings. Disabling it really doesn't do a lot to stop a site as famous and popular as The Pirate Bay. A way for less technical users to access it without DNS would quickly be devised and used, probably with extra protections included to make downloaders less easily locatable.
      
      Besides, if TPB was effectively disabled in some way, that does exactly nothing to stop piracy. There are still thousands of torrent sites (if not more), torrents are hardly the only way that piracy takes place online.
      
      Once again, this is why business models are discussed whenever some overreaching attack is used on behalf of the media corporations. It simply won't work, and the tactics allowed on their behalf can just as easily be used to quell legitimate free speech - a dangerous thing for a government to get used to using. The way to defeat piracy is to remove the incentive to pirate, and no matter what some people will say, it's not all just because it's free.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But it seems the US government is setting up an active "whack a mole" department. If they have the power to block sites, I would imagine that is exactly what they'll do. They could block a thousand sites in less than a week and then just have a maintenance program after that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is that working out in China?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unsurprisingly, you seem to lack the intelligence to realise that the US government doesn't control the world, and that most such sites (and their users) are not located in the US. I somehow don't think that blocking sites at a DNS level would be without economic and political backlash even if the sites are breaking US law in some way.
        
        You also lack the intelligence to realise what an atrocious idea this would be, and the huge nature of the collateral damage caused. Really, you'd support giving the government an opportunity to block any site for arbitrary reasons, at the behest of large corporations? You don't see the problem with that, especially given the faulty evidence often presented to sue individuals?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Law enforcement is rarely pretty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 22 Mar 2011 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dont DNS me bro
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly, and what will be really interesting is when US companies find out they are DNS disabled by non US governments becasue they are breaking the law in other countries.
        
        And believe me nearly 90% of ALL USA commercial organisations online are breaking the laws of EU/Commonwealth countries everytime they advertise, collect information, or sell anything to non US citizens.
        
        ICANN is already a thorn in the US Govt's side (as well as other govt's) with the passing of the .xxx TLD. I can see it being handled by the UN sooner than people think if COICA is passed leaving the USA with nothing more to do than be a petulant child and scream "but mummy... the bad people don't let me do what i want.. waaaaa.. they must be all terrorists, and god haters"
        
        For more on what ICANN is currently passing and what the GAC hate see here. In fact the scoreboard is very interesting, especially the ratings given a "2"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  You don't have a clue as to how DNS works do you?
  
  If you are pointing at an alternate DNS system the only thing it is responsible for are the IP addresses programmed into it. Everything else gets looked up at other DNS servers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 21 Mar 2011 @ 8:38pm
    
    Re: You don't have a clue as to how DNS works do you?
    If you are pointing at an alternate DNS system the only thing it is responsible for are the IP addresses programmed into it. Everything else gets looked up at other DNS servers.
    Cluelessness FTW!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:36am
      
      Re: Re: You don't have a clue as to how DNS works do you?
      Why are you sending me to the parts of the RFC 1034-1035 specs? A recs, CNAME, etc? I was pointing out if you define domains as records in your primary DNS server. Then they take precident over records on other DNS servers.
      
      Truth be told the simplest solution to the whole banned websites issue is to create a whitelist of confiscated domains and import it into BIND every few minutes. This way you dont need an alternate DNS system just an import plugin for BIND that anyone could use. This capability probably already exists. Who would maintains the list or lists is something that we would need a working group to determine.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: You don't have a clue as to how DNS works do you?
        Sure, as long as an IP-redirect isn't also implemented at the ISP level (and lets face it, the number of ISPs is diminishing as smaller ones struggle to compete with the incumbent monopolies such as Verizon, Comcast, Brighthouse, etc), at least in the US. Yes there's some maintenance and overhead involved in the battle between hijacking a site, and that site working around the hijack as they move to dynamic IPs, relays, etc. Ok I probably just talked myself out of that as a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re:
  There have been any number of "alternate DNS" systems over the last 15 years, and they all fail in the end.
  
  This is addressed in Vixie's post. You did read it before commenting, didn't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He is not big on reading. He spends most his time shilling out at the bridge some of his friends live under.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, I did. I am just retouching on it because, just like you, he seems to be more happy to brush of the failures for the "goal". It is all as likely as before to fail again.
    
    As a side note, IPv6 day is coming. Soon enough, every end user (and every piece of equipment) will have it's own IP. Then all the hiding in the weeds won't do anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As a side note, IPv6 day is coming. Soon enough, every end user (and every piece of equipment) will have it's own IP. Then all the hiding in the weeds won't do anything.
      
      Seems like that would make it all that much easier to spoof an IP address if every end computer has it's own. How is an ISP going to assign them, by MAC address? I can already spoof that real easy like.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, the process is that they will normally assign a block to your gateway (modem, router, or the like) and then every device and item will get assigned from there. It's the end of NAT and all the crap that comes with spoofing, as you won't be able to have an IP outside of your block. it also changes some of the ways at tunneling, VPN, and gateway services would work, making it much harder to "hide".
        
        Technically, it's a whole new world, something I am still learning. But there will no longer be a single IP address to a home shared by 10 computers behind NAT or the old 192.168.x.x ip addresses. Now every single device will be specifically assigned it's own IPv6 address, that will have to match into the network it is on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah. But from what I read (admittedly not a whole lot), it's still going to determine the IP address based on your MAC address.
        
        So if I spoof my MAC address with a different value every time I connect, I would get a different IP address each time and none would actually identify me. Especially if I connect at a public wireless access point like my public library (no registration required - just walk in, sit down and connect)
        
        Just gonna make MAC spoofing the norm and there still will be no way to legally make an IP address equal a person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        From what I understand, you would have to spoof the MAC address of everything on your network. Your modem / gateway (if you are using a cable or DSL style ISP) would be assigned a block, likely a "block for life" based on it's MAC address. That would be assigned to you.
        
        That MAC address is sort of key, because more ISPs are using it in conjunction with your user information for connection tracking. If you change MAC address, you would lose your connectivity.
        
        After that, everything downstream from there (your PCs, your wireless, any other network devices) would all get an IP from that block. So you can spoof your laptop MAC address all you want, you will still be in the same 4096 addresses assigned to your network connection. Again, no more NAT, your machine is more directly online (which is more efficient).
        
        Shared space (WiFi, example) may reuse IPs, or it may have an MAC address lookup, so if you ever hit the same network twice, you get the same IP back. Yes, spoofing in this case would get you a new IP each time, but again within a limited block. Without NAT, your ip / MAC / user combination can be put together (making it harder to hide).
        
        I think you will find that IPv6 gets rid of many of the hideyholes people have been using.
        
        Oh yeah, proxies? They will be a fail as well, because under IPv6, they are pass through. Failure to pass through may make the proxy owner look like the only user, which could create liability.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think you will find that IPv6 gets rid of many of the hideyholes people have been using."
        
        I like the work "many". I can think of 7 hidey holes off the top of my head.
        
        "Oh yeah, proxies? They will be a fail as well, because under IPv6, they are pass through. Failure to pass through may make the proxy owner look like the only user, which could create liability."
        
        I like the phrase "could create liability". This won't fly under the EU laws on privacy. It is also a fail in the US due to the 1st amendement.
        
        Nice FUD though, please try again later.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree, the government/your ISP logically can control what comes into your house via your Internet connection. But don't think that will do anything to stop piracy, people will pirate things brick and mortar style, which is what everyone did years back when I was in high school and the Internet was much too slow for Internet piracy to be feasible (everyone had dialup). Even freshmen in my highschool pirated playstation games when the PS1 came out, even Freshmen took apart the Playstations to install chips that can be used to play pirated games, operating systems were pirated, movies were pirated, etc... none of the piracy occurred over the Internet. and people have only gotten better at pirating and jailbreaking this stuff, despite the fact that software and content and DRM has gotten more sophisticated in their ability to resist circumvention. It used to take about six months to circumvent far less secure DRM, the far more secure DRM we have today gets hacked in about a day, a week at most. I knew a ton of people who used to make a lot of money burning audio CD's and selling them, not to mention software, movies, etc... back in highschool. All that stopped only because the Internet made piracy more efficient, but you can't stop piracy, you can't even slow it down appreciably. I used to be able to get a copy of almost any software or song I wanted brick and mortar style back in the days, for $5, and I knew people who have been pirating $2000 software back in the days when no one had a CD burner and they used to be distributed on like 50 floppy disks, with each floppy disk being decompressed onto the computer one by one and then pirated software finally being installed (and this was for a computer science class someone I knew was taking, they got a hold of the specific software that the teacher required to do an assignment with. Granted, it took up practically all the hard drive back then, being that hard drive wasn't what it is today). You can't stop piracy, you can't even slow it down much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and these days, with a hard drive being able to hold 2.5 terabytes, people can simply have one hard drive with practically every song that anyone would ever want to either sell or give copies to people who want them. Stopping music piracy is impossible, it was impossible many years ago when people used to have collections of hundreds of CD's with pirated music and content on them to sell/give away to others. It's all the more impossible to stop now, one person with a single hard drive can carry so many songs that they can have just about any song that anyone can ever want and they can distribute that how they see fit to people they know and have known since they were children, the police will never make it in their circle of friends, it will cost them far more than what the corporations allegedly lose to enforce it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, see below. The point isn't to stop piracy, it is to make it less available, less desirable, less common. Like anything, piracy has a tipping point. If it goes underground, only a certain percentage of people will follow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 9:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You won't even slow it down much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 21 Mar 2011 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Again, see below. The point isn't to stop piracy, it is to make it less available, less desirable, less common."
        
        Right. Thats what they SHOULD be focused on. Instead, they sue their customers, bribe lawmakers to change laws against the copyright clause of the constitution and the public good, and generally do everything BUT make their own offerings better/cheaper/more available/more convenient to give people less of a reason to turn to piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point isn't to stop piracy, it is to make it less available, less desirable, less common. Like anything, piracy has a tipping point. If it goes underground, only a certain percentage of people will follow
        
        We've been hearing that for a dozen years now. That was the reasoning behind the DMCA, the lawsuit against Napster, the lawsuit against Aimster, the lawsuit against Grokster, the ProIP Act, and a variety of other things.
        
        How has that worked so far?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Someone seems a little too eager to defend piracy...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Someone else seems eager to ignore the facts in favour of a fantasy strawman because arguing with reality is too difficult...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 5:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "because arguing with reality is too difficult..."
        
        You can't argue with reality. You can only ignore its existance and thats ... just crazy ... :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 2:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What tipping point?
        The point where everybody start using encrypted anonymous networks to communicate and share things and become almost impossible to track down or the other tipping point where somehow magically people will stop pirating everything? or the tipping point that is my favorite, people get sick and tired of you people and just start using legal free alternatives that gives them the sames things they would have had pirating the illegal stuff?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...it also changes some of the ways at tunneling, VPN, and gateway services would work, making it much harder to "hide".
        
        I wouldn't hedge my bets too heavily on that one. Too many businesses and governments rely on those for secure, private and untraceable interactions and I really can't see any of them giving that up readily.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Steven (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about here. Yes IPv6 would have enough addresses for every device, but that doesn't mean each device get's an IP address and it certainly doesn't mean VPN, IP tunneling, and the myriad other technical networking configurations go away because they have real uses outside conservation of IP addresses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah. I actually like the fact that my computer is not addressable from outside my network.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know those IP's have to be bought right?
        So why are people going to pay for an IP number when they don't need to?
        
        Care to explain how that will work?
        
        We all know already that you understand s. about what you are talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Berenerd (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      it took Thomas Edison over 10,000 tries to make the American light bulb.
      
      Just sayin..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Dan (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What's the real benefit of unique IP addresses per device? I don't plan to abandon NAT for my home router anytime soon, regardless of IPv6. My ISP doesn't have any right to know what or how many devices I'm using on my internal network.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As a side note, IPv6 day is coming. Soon enough, every end user (and every piece of equipment) will have it's own IP. Then all the hiding in the weeds won't do anything.
      
      NAT-PT http://tomicki.net/ipv6.router.php
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For that people can go Hervivore(The theoretical robust resilient anonymous network).
      
      Quote:
      
      Herbivore is a distributed anonymous communication system, providing private file sharing and messaging over the Internet. It lets people anonymously publish and retrieve documents, and guarantees that even the most resourceful adversary cannot compromise this anonymity. Built to be self-organizing, Herbivore relies on neither central servers nor trusted parties, and ultimately provides anonymity by drawing on its community of users.
      
      Plus I don't think you understand why IPv6 want be different from the IPv4 in many respects. If you think ISP's will "lease" one IP for each customers you are just dumb, if you think any company will "lease" an IP for every piece of equipment they have or could have "you are just dumb, really, really dumb"(Quote from the "Bed Intruder" song), but seriously that assertion right there shows how much you know about the tech you are trying to talk about, which is next to nothing by the way. No self respecting tech dude would ever say something like that because he knows he would be flamed and called an idiot or noob by its peers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  Ah, the usual missing the point from an AC...
  
  "There have been any number of "alternate DNS" systems over the last 15 years, and they all fail in the end. "
  
  Probably because there's no incentive to use them. The article is about what TPB might do if they were forced from standard DNS, which would very much give some people the required incentive.
  
  "If the pirate types want to take it all private, more power to them."
  
  ...but that would not actually *stop* the piracy, which is kind of the whole point. It would make it more difficult to track and prosecute, but it wouldn't stop it. This is one of the reasons why business models get talked about here - you can't effectively stop piracy, but that doesn't matter if your business model accepts that inevitable fact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    but that would not actually *stop* the piracy, which is kind of the whole point.
    
    It would also make it very much harder to FIND piracy, and would make piracy stand out oh so much more. When end users have to take significant actions to connect to the world of piracy, they may choose not to do it. All of the pirate sites would disappear out of the search engines in minutes (I doubt Google will bot a network that not everyone sees), and thus piracy goes out of the public spotlight and into seclusion.
    
    It is possibly the biggest error that piracy supporters push, that people are trying to "stop piracy". Really, all they are trying to do is push it back past the tipping point in the other direction, where piracy is hidden, not public, and used less as a result. The tipping point is key.
    
    Oh yeah, how hard do you think it will be to check DNS requests to alternate NS systems? Don't you think that ISPs and the like will not get wise to the move, and perhaps limit bandwidth into their networks from these sources? You know, no blocking, just putting the peering onto a 56k dialup modem or something?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, so much bullshit in just a few paragraphs:
      
      "All of the pirate sites would disappear out of the search engines in minutes"
      
      Bwahahahhahaha good one! Oh wait, you're SERIOUS? Wow you have your delusional blinders on REALLY tight. So, lets say this mythical (and heretofore unprecedented) disappearance takes place. How long do you think it will be before they are back? I give it days, at best, and probably no more than hours. Bet they already have a method to circumvent already worked out. It is the height of hubris to think that file sharing is going away anytime soon, much less all at once with the flip of a switch.
      
      "It is possibly the biggest error that piracy supporters push, that people are trying to "stop piracy". Really, all they are trying to do is push it back past the tipping point in the other direction, where piracy is hidden, not public, and used less as a result. The tipping point is key."
      
      Wrong. Categorically wrong. "They" arent interested in "just" pushing things just a weensy bit back past your strawman tipping point. They want total control, and obliteration. This has been pointed out by EVERYONE, on both sides of the argument, many many many times.
      
      "Oh yeah, how hard do you think it will be to check DNS requests to alternate NS systems? Don't you think that ISPs and the like will not get wise to the move, and perhaps limit bandwidth into their networks from these sources? You know, no blocking, just putting the peering onto a 56k dialup modem or something?"
      
      Never happen, net neutrality and business/customer suicide will prevent it. And if this or another law gets through that does allow this to happen, say bye bye to growth on the internet, any freedoms you might have aspired to, and say hello to totalitarianism and having your every online activity tracked and logged and eventually used against you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        RD, as always, you fail to answer the bell with any logic.
        
        Do you think Google is going to teach their bots about a bunch of different alternate DNS systems to be able to go index stuff? I doubt it. Google will just shrug their shoulders and ignore them, which is what every other bot will do as well. Google wants to link to sites people can reach, not ones they cannot reach.
        
        Net neutrality is the usual hiding space for pirates and hackers. Again, there is no indication that anyone is going to add alternate DNS to their local DNS servers, and many ISPs block external DNS requests (requests to outside DNS servers are redirected to their own). So while it may be possible to install your alternate DNS, you may find it very hard to get realiable lookups or to make the network function.
        
        They key is while some people may get it working, many of the current casual pirates won't bother, and as a result we head for a tipping point.
        
        If you and your pirate buddies want to go hide in a secret bat cave, more power to you. Don't let the internet hit you on the ass on the way out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Net neutrality is the usual hiding space for pirates and hackers."
        
        Christ, just when I though you couldn't get any dumber. You're arguing for the removal of net neutrality now? Do you realise that it's also the "hiding place" for things like Netflix, Pandora and Hulu?
        
        " there is no indication that anyone is going to add alternate DNS to their local DNS servers"
        
        Because, at present, there's no incentive to do so. Introduce the incentive, and a lot of people will do just that.
        
        "They key is while some people may get it working, many of the current casual pirates won't bother, and as a result we head for a tipping point."
        
        One thing that you and your ilk don't seem to understand is that removing piracy won't instantly increase sales. A great many of the people who pirate are doing so because either the product they wish to obtain isn't being legally offered, or because they literally cannot afford to buy it. If the tipping point you wish for is reached, that won't guarantee that the failing industries are saved, since those people will still not buy anything more than they do now.
        
        "you and your pirate buddies"
        
        Please, stop lying about the people you're talking to and listen to what actually being said. There's a million reasons to oppose the measures being taken without supporting piracy in the slightest. What you're saying is essentially the same as saying that people who complain about being searched at the airport are terrorists. It's just stupid, and doesn't address the actual issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        Do you think Google is going to teach their bots about a bunch of different alternate DNS systems to be able to go index stuff? I doubt it. Google will just shrug their shoulders and ignore them, which is what every other bot will do as well. Google wants to link to sites people can reach, not ones they cannot reach.
        
        This is wrong, Google will go where people goes, if people are using secure anonymous network overlays they will have to find a way to index that crap or face loosing their ad revenue, I don't think you understand the seriousness of the matter, a little industry may jeopardize a much bigger one because of a misguided attempt to control something which will lead them to loose all control.
        
        There is no moving piracy to a tipping point that is just ludicrous, first you can't enforce s. on people's home, people have more control inside their homes then other people outside, second to try and take that away will cause a fierce backlash that I don't think there is any freedom loving country could fight against.
        
        If you want to live in a deserted internet don't let the new networks hit you in the ass on the way out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is wrong, Google will go where people goes, if people are using secure anonymous network overlays they will have to find a way to index that crap or face loosing their ad revenue,
        
        Google could find themselves facing a DMCA "red flag" issue here, as the "alternate DNS" systems are being created specifically to allow for illegal activity. Google may find themselves in the position of specifically having to avoid these non-standard DNSes to avoid legal action.
        
        Further, Google wants to list what people can actually reach. If 10% of people have the alternate DNS in place, that means that 90% of people would not be able to reach indexed sites. That would be way more negative for Google than not having a bunch of pirate "search engine" spam listings in their SERPs
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "It would also make it very much harder to FIND piracy"
      
      No, it wouldn't. Even if successful, it would only make The Pirate Bay harder to find - and that's a hell of a long way from the only source. Kill torrents, and people just move to other methods. Piracy would still be very much alive and kicking, unless you want to start doing this arbitrarily for every site that appears to violate copyright. Do enough of that, and hey presto you've given people a massive incentive to use the alternative DNS system - or whatever other type of system they make to replace DNS.
      
      "piracy supporters"
      
      If you continue to falsely label critics in that way, you'll never understand what they're saying. Either listen to what people are actually saying or stop typing. It's a waste of energy.
      
      "Really, all they are trying to do is push it back past the tipping point in the other direction, where piracy is hidden, not public, and used less as a result."
      
      This is the main thing that I criticise in my posts here, really. The answer is not to reduce the piracy itself, but to reduce the demand for it. The real incentives behind piracy are often things like availability (regional restrictions, release windows, format restrictions, DRM, ability to easily format shift or remotely access content) and quality (FLAC, decent subtitles in your desired language and so on) that often aren't present with legal product. Remove these incentives, and you've gone a long way to killing piracy, without having to bring pricing into the argument (although in some industries, lower pricing certainly would help increase revenue).
      
      One great argument about the PS3 hacks recently have been that they really only happened because the desires of the pirates and the legal users were aligned. That is, by killing the OtherOS function, they ended up uniting people who just wanted free stuff with the people with the technical knowledge and desire to make it happen. The hackers only wanted to return functionality to their legally owned hardware, but they ended up making it possible for pirates to operate as well.
      
      Same thing here. If they successfully kill torrents at the source then they end up with a lot of Linux fans who have a very deep desire to create a less vulnerable system - and the technical knowledge to do so.
      
      "from these sources"
      
      ...and when the sources change? Or when the locations are spoofed to look like they come from Netflix or Xbox Live?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        These will be the same sort of people who created mail, the most insecure protocol on the planet? Or perhaps http, the protocol that is easily confused?
        
        Yeah... I can see it now. A distributed DNS filled with russian hackers infecting your computer at every turn by polluting the DNS pool.
        
        Yup, the internet is a secure, safe place with absolute no holes or hacks.
        
        Right!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, your argument is that because people working in the 70s and 80s didn't foresee the problems that would occur when everybody in the industrial world had internet access, that their successors cannot create a secure system? Or, at the very least, a system that cannot be shut down as easily as the current one (which has been fought against for over a decade without killing piracy)? That because the "mail protocol" (which one are you talking about?) is insecure and http has its problems - neither of which were originally designed for the general public - that no new system can overcome these issues by design?
        
        Yeah, you're a clueless ass and unfortunately quite typical of the people who try to defend the old school models.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What this could do is destroy Google ad revenue and others sources of multibillion dollar revenues that is what this could end up doing.
      
      If people start moving to other networks which are not business friendly you just end up loosing more control on the business front, if people move to an anonymous overlay that can't be indexed and you don't know who is doing what you lost control, already people are using anonymous communication tools like Retroshare.
      
      Now which is more important a 20 billion industry(i.e. entertainment industry) or a 200 billion industry(i.e. internet industry)?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Simple to bypass using Socks5.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There is no goal to "stop piracy", just one to basically neuter it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re:
  Virtual appliances will make that point mute, you can have it all and don't need to change anything inside your physical space.
  
  You can have one virtual appliance for each network you want to be in.
  
  Now one thing I want to point out is that there are numerous attempts to create a freer internet and the fact that there are many projects still working on it just shows that, this is not something that will go away.
  
  What happens when people move on to the next internet 3.0 entirely under the control of anonymous?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:46pm

The guy is spot on. As was mentioned before on TD, his predictions about TPB setting up an alternative DNS are already coming true, except they are doing it as a distributed (i.e. more resilient) system with no centralised servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:51pm

Who needs universal naming?
I go by one name in real life. Well, rather several names, my full legal name for legal documents or a shortened version of my first name plus my last name in other cases or just my first name.

Additionally, on here I am known as John Doe. Sometimes I forget and I am labeled Anonymous Coward and some refer to that as just AC. On other forums I go by other names. Sometimes my first initial concatenated with my last name or I choose other aliases that don't use my real name.

So you see, my internet activity should be easily monitored even without universal naming. Oh wait, maybe by going by all those different names actually does make it hard to track? Hmmm, vexing indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:02pm

Paul Vixie gives media lobbyists one more reason to push COICA
Universal naming is one of the reasons for the Internet's success and dominance.

You realize that the same people who think COICA as a good idea also view the "Internet's success and dominance" as a bad thing right?

Old media lobbyists think it's bad because it means they're obsolete.

Government lackeys think it's bad because it enables things like Wikileaks.

Way to make them dig in even further!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:16pm

They don't think like that
The people pushing for COICA don't think long-term. They don't understand the law of unintended consequences. If they did either, they would not be in the mess they are in and looking for a quick-fix-that-won't-work like COICA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:24pm

Clearly the superior TLD would be .ARR. I can see myself going to www.thepiratebay.arr at some point in the future, presumably shortly after COICA gets pushed through by lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misterdoug (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:36pm

Same as the DMCA
Running an alternative DNS network would violate the intent of COICA. The solution that follows the DMCA pattern would be to criminalize alternative DNS networks. Is that any more far-fetched than criminalizing t-shirts with DeCSS code on them?

The fragility of the system isn't of any concern to Congress. If their financial sponsors have a door with a lock that is too easy to pick, Congress makes it illegal to stand on the sidewalk in front of the door. When someone figures out a way to pick the lock from across the street, Congress makes it illegal to be across the street. The last thing they'll do is force the locksmiths to make a lock that actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: Same as the DMCA
  Just to further the analogy a bit, the lock on the door is on a building that has had all four walls torn down, and the door is just standing there by itself. It is a simple matter to go around the locked door. But the xIAA et.al. are still convinced that the correct combination of lock and laws will be found eventually and keep people out of the building.
  
  Meanwhile, independent artists are constructing new buildings all around them and inviting people into their establishments. But the owners of the original door are too fixated on their old door and lock to pay much attention to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re: Same as the DMCA
  About lock-picking I saw some years ago some students hacking locks using photographs to reconstruct a physical key using credit-card cards. Congress should ban photography.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2011 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Same as the DMCA
    In some ways, they have. Just ask Mr. Swirlyface.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:16pm

OpenNIC
There is already an alternative DNS system http://www.opennicproject.org/

It already mirrors the primary DNS. It already has additional top level domains (pirate is not one of them, but free is).

It already work, has domain registration (of course not for .com/.edu/...)

You can start using it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam sin, 21 Mar 2011 @ 2:30pm

the biggest issues that government forget/ignore is that they are supposed to be representatives of and for the people, not just for big businesses and themselves. sooner or later, shit always hits fan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:25pm

Governments never learn. Over the millennia they have outlawed all sorts of things that ordinary people wanted to do. Ordinary people, collectively smarter than governments, always win and often spawn a criminal element that profits from the prohibition. Think Prohibition -- didn't work. Taxing tobacco has just encouraged a black market. The illegality of several forms of porn doesn't slow those markets at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Dynice (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:27pm

Here is a motivational poster that sums up the scenario nicely:
http://nsputnik.com/walter-peck-putts-law.jpg pass it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:40pm

Quote:

It would also make it very much harder to FIND piracy, and would make piracy stand out oh so much more. When end users have to take significant actions to connect to the world of piracy, they may choose not to do it. All of the pirate sites would disappear out of the search engines in minutes (I doubt Google will bot a network that not everyone sees), and thus piracy goes out of the public spotlight and into seclusion.

You mean like in Japan that everybody uses Share and the police there don't know what it is being transferred?

Yep I see how that would be a deterrence to piracy.
I don't think you understand encryption is coming and secure communications will be the first thing you will loose the capability to peek inside, people will use encrypted emails to transfer files and you won't know what they are transferring, people will use IM(Instant Messengers) and you won't know what it is inside are ISP's going to block all of that?

Retroshare is a good example of that, how will you monitor that network?

How will you stop people from using Socks5 or other alternatives, how are you going to deal with Herbivore type of network overlays?

How will you deal with independent networks like Netsukuku

I can send data in the form of mathematical formulas, are filters prepared to censor math? A file is just a big number(i.e. 2 to the power of whatever plus one if it is and odd number).

How will you deal with steganography that can be used to divide each frame from a movie in 4, 8, 16 parts and insert those inside other movies so you just need a map of those 4 movies that have the parts embedded to recreate a full movie(I'm using video as an example since it will be the most difficult because of its size), you wouldn't be able to know if those people are downloading the video because of the video or what it is inside that video, you wouldn't be able to apply a video to know if there was something illegal on it, heck you wouldn't know where to look for it.

Also there is a good chance that people could move to internet overlays exclusively once they get easy to use and you get left outside, while people do things inside their own virtual network, Google and others will become desperate to try and index that, because it is about where people are and not where Google is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 6:02pm

Potential problem
Third, they'd hire a lot of server capacity all over the world to host their DNS system. Since their DNS system would have no pirated content on it � thus by itself breaking no laws � they would not have to keep it all on their offshore base

That seems to be in dispute already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 21 Mar 2011 @ 11:03pm

DNS has an IP - IP's can be shut down. Nice try through
If this guy is so smart, why does he not tell us that the DNS server that TPB or anyone else 'sets up' has an IP address.

So they will not kill it at the DNS level, ofcourse they will just kill that IP address.

How easy is that, all that work by pirate bay for nothing, perhaps Vixen might want to take a few lessons on how the internet works.

And so should you Mike.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 11:26pm
  
  Re: DNS has an IP - IP's can be shut down. Nice try through
  So they will not kill it at the DNS level, ofcourse they will just kill that IP address.
  
  I can never tell when it's really you and when someone is just spoofing you. Can you clarify for me whether (A) you really just said something so ridiculous or (B) you're pretending to be darryl to make him look crazier than we already think he is?
  
  Thanks in advance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 3:29am
  
  Re: DNS has an IP - IP's can be shut down. Nice try through
  Well, the system the TPB people are working on is both Transparent (meaning it's an overlay, if the domain does not resolve on their DNS - you'll be forwarded to your normal dns) and distributed.
  
  So, no hindrance for the people using it, the normal 'net will work just as it does now.
  And lastly, and this is the important bit - THOUSANDS of IP addresses for the DNS since it's distributed.
  
  The plan is to have no single point of failure.
  So uhm ... troll on, have at it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
eats tribbles, 22 Mar 2011 @ 4:57am

re:
once systems are enacted to hinder duplication via one channel, a dozen will arise to circumvent it. I would speculate that there are no accurate statistics to represent the amount of media traded in the days of the "mix tape" and while the US may see this Act as forcing a decline in piracy, it will just be a decline in visibility. From here on out every classroom/party/bar will be a swapping ground, device to device, unmonitored.

as pointed out earlier, the poor thief with nothing to steal is just a poor consumer. This obvious and futile control grab by the US will only force the public to seek new avenues to acquire information. Hand to hand if need be...

pass it on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: re:
  That's called sneakernet, and the goal the entire time has been to take piracy back to that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 22 Mar 2011 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re: re:
    So making sneakernets a viable option is a good thing. Carry on with your magicalchristmasland.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paolo, 22 Mar 2011 @ 6:26pm

We already do it
Hello! I am one of a group of activists running a VPN (I avoid to put here the link, it would be undeserved advertisement) and as a matter of fact we went quite annoyed by seizures of perfectly legal websites especially outside the USA.

As a consequence, we started to run an effective system against ICE domain names seizures since months ago, simpler than the system described by Paul Vixie. It works, it's completely transparent to the user who is inside the VPN, and it does not create incompatibilities with ICANN. It just resolves "seized" domain names to the correct IP address, by detecting automatically seizures and by not recognizing ICANN/VeriSign/Afilias authority on those domain names.

This is to say that, just like the article claims, the more any entity will push for COICA-like solutions, be it even the gov't of the USA, the more we and thousands other groups in the world will find solutions against it - without breaking down Internet in isolated subnets.

Kind regards,
Paolo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dashworlds (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:32am

To Divide and Rule? ....No, To Unite and Enhance
The current political/ICANN climate simply persuades people to vote with their feet to find new ways of improving their Web experience. One result is that Internet users everywhere can now create an unlimited range of unique and previously unseen Non-ICANN domains and TLDs without cost.

Sites such as Dashworlds.com provide free domain names in the format "business-com", "paris-fashion" and "social-network" (examples only). Totally outside the realm and control of ICANN, Internet users can create any domain or any TLD in any language, instantly and at no cost whatsoever (and of course Dashcoms can't collide with Dotcoms).

With users and members in over 90 countries worldwide, resolution is via an APP although new ISP links are available to negate that need (links that are also available to ICANN).

Not-so-long-ago, people would have thought the Internet itself to be a complete waste of time effort and money. After all why would you want to buy a hugely expensive computer, get an extra phone line, buy a modem, buy an OS, learn how to use it all....Just so you could read the news? All you had to do was walk down to the newsagent...or simply turn on the not-so-flatscreen television.

Having just one Internet arena floating in infinite cyberspace is like saying you can visit anywhere in the USA as long as it's on Route 66. So now, just as in the USA and everywhere else in the world, the Web has more than one option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]