SOPA Supporter: If You Use DNSSEC You Can Ignore SOPA/PIPA

from the wait,-what? dept

Fri, Dec 9th 2011 4:25pm — Mike Masnick

Daniel Castro from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is the guy who has been highlighted for coming up with the idea of censoring the internet to deal with copyright infringement online. In 2009, he wrote a whitepaper suggesting just such a strategy, and since then has been a vocal champion of the approach that mimics China's Great Firewall.

He's issued a "response" to "critics" over the bills which is, frankly, an embarrassment for supporters of these bills. There may be some compelling ways to defend these disasters (though I doubt it), but Castro's paper is beyond ridiculous. It rolls out all the usual bogus tropes, talking up the "size" of the problem with claims that simply aren't backed up by the data at all. But it's main focus is trying to respond to the claims of all sorts of people who actually understand internet security, about how DNS blocking would be a disaster. At this point, the incredible thing is that supporters of SOPA/PIPA have yet to come up with a single credible person who thinks DNS blocking is a good idea. On the flip side, DNS experts like Paul Vixie and David Ulevitch have been vocally opposed. In addition, there are other folks like Stewart Baker, the former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former NSA General Counsel, as well as the folks at Sandia National Labs, experts in internet security, who are opposed to it as well. All of them have pointed out that DNS blocking won't work, will likely make things worse, and will have disastrous consequences for internet security. These are people who understand this stuff at its core. On the other side? We've got Daniel Castro. There's a lot of ridiculousness here, but let's start with the most insane part, the response over how this will kill DNSSEC. Castro seems to suggest that those who use DNSSEC can just ignore the law:

PIPA/SOPA states that service providers are required to take only �technically feasible and reasonable measures� to comply with government court orders. The legislation further states that a service provider is not required to �modify its network, software, systems, or facilities� to comply with these requirements. This means that if DNS servers are deployed using DNSSEC, and if DNSSEC does not allow for the type of redirection or filtering specified in the legislation, ISPs would not need to take action. Thus there is no reason to suspect that ISPs would delay deploying DNSSEC because of provisions in SIPA/PIPA. If anything, to the extent that any ISPs oppose DNS filtering for ideological or technical reasons, the DNS filtering requirements in PIPA/SOPA would serve as a catalyst for ISPs to upgrade to DNSSEC since this may free them of unwanted obligations.

Really? Is he really arguing that if you're running DNSSEC, you can ignore the government's official blacklist? Why do I get the feeling that any provider that actually does that will quickly find themselves hauled into court for... "enabling" or "facilitating" infringement? How can anyone take this seriously?

While technology should shape policy, it should not determine policy. The U.S. policies on the Internet should not be determined by the ideological points of view of a few network engineers in the IETF. Policymakers routinely ask the private sector to design systems to meet new technical standards so as to achieve a specific policy outcome.

This is either ignorant or just stupid. DNSSEC has been under development for sixteen years. Part of the reason it's taken so long is because this is not easy. Castro's flippant suggestion that we just ignore the technological issues is downright scary. If the technology is carefully set up and clueless think tankers and regulators are about to throw a decade plus of careful development out the window for a "problem" they can't actually show with a "solution" that won't work... it seems pretty damn reasonable to raise the technological issues.

DNSSEC, as with many technical standards, is not an immutable set of rules carved by God on stone tablets. Although DNSSEC has been codified in various technical documents, it continues to evolve over time as researchers propose new modifications to the standard to address various limitations. The question policymakers should be asking is not whether the proposed solution is compatible with the current version of DNSSEC, but how to craft policies that best take advantage of potential improvements in the DNSSEC standard.

Ah, the MPAA's "you techies can just change the code" argument. Once again, displaying a massive ignorance of what has happened over the last 16 years and the effort that has gone into creating DNSSEC and then beginning the process of getting it out there. Is Castro really suggesting that we go back to the drawing board, and leave security issues ignored for another decade and a half? Just because some movie studios are too lazy to adapt? That's scary.

Opponents of PIPA/SOPA, such as the Internet Society and Crocker et al., argue that DNS filtering will �puts users at risk.�31 However there are no security risks from DNS filtering. Instead, the purported security risks for users come about only for those Internet users who begin using alternative DNS services (i.e. those individuals intent on breaking the law). Yet, as we have seen, to date there is little evidence that the average user will begin using these alternative DNS services. In fact, users will be unlikely to use an alternative DNS service precisely because of the security risks.

This is a disgusting smear from Castro, suggesting that the only people who might use alternative DNS systems are intent on breaking the law. Does he really not think that some people might not trust the US DNS system once it's been given orders for an official blacklist of sites to censor?

The Internet Society argues that DNS filtering �has the potential to restrict free and open communications and could be used in ways that limit the rights of individuals or minority groups.� Of course it could. ISPs or the U.S. government could use DNS filtering to block sites they do not like. But guns can be used by criminals to kill people too and that does not mean that we do not let the police or security guards have guns.

Is he really arguing that DNS filtering isn't censorship in the US because we're giving it to "the good guys"? That seems to be the argument here... and it's ridiculous. The censors in China and Iran consider themselves the good guys too. Is this really the message we want to send to the rest of the world? Just make sure you say your official censors are "police" and all is good, according to Daniel Castro.

Critics of PIPA/SOPA are trying to suggest that if a user is prevented from obtaining a pirated copy of the latest Hollywood film, this is an unlawful restriction of their Constitutional rights.

No, actually, that's not what they're arguing. They're arguing that this idiotic censorship system Castro is supporting will censor plenty of protected speech, which is a restriction of their Constitutional rights.

Ironically, many of the voices arguing that DNS filtering does not solve the core issue, which is that pirated content is made available online, often are the same ones opposing digital rights management (DRM) technology that is created to achieve the very goal of eliminating pirated content.

That's not ironic. Neither DNS filtering nor DNS achieve the goal in question. The position of being against draconian, overly aggressive technology that harms consumers rights and is likely to be abused, is entirely consistent.

There's a lot more in the paper like this, but you get the idea. There's barely a sentence in there that's reasonable or sensible.

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: daniel castro, dns, dnssec, security

81 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

MrWilson, 9 Dec 2011 @ 4:39pm

That sounds like a setup, like when the NYPD told protesters they could cross the bridge and then arrested them for crossing the bridge.

"Go ahead and circumvent the law... ::snicker:: It's perfectly fine! Trust me."

If the law can be circumvented that easily with the implementation of DNSSEC, then the law is useless and shouldn't be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic, 9 Dec 2011 @ 4:51pm

RE: mistype?
Neither DNS filtering nor DNS achieve the goal in question.

Shouldn't it be:

... nor DRM ...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blaktron (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:05pm

A someone who is involved in running DNS for 2 Class B Public networks, not located in the states, the only possible way this wouldnt break the internet is if I, as well as every other DNS manager outside the US, also follows US law.

PIPA/SOPA not only make DNSSEC impossible, since it requires a trusted network of entities around the globe to coordinate DNS replication, it BREAKS THE DOMAIN SYSTEM AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. This cannot be understated. China has to exist in a completely translated network environment for their Great Firewall to even work, and if the US were to back themselves out the global internet in order to implement theirs, it would be extremely harmful to the world at large.

Please, as someone outside of the US who would be GREATLY impacted by these laws, please stop them from going into place. I'm not sure if PIPA/SOPA would be worse for you or for me, but at that level of damage does it really matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:21pm
  
  Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
  "The U.S. policies on the Internet should not be determined by the ideological points of view of a few network engineers..."
  
  Anyhoo, is there some more complicated procedure that you'd have to follow other than letting the lists automatically update as now? Just because an entry is changed to point to a DHS banner surely won't affect your operations.
  
  Sounds as though you intend to revise the lists on your systems so as to get around US notions. So far as appears, you won't be at all bothered by US law in doing that. Just let the script run and enjoy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Digitari, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:25pm
    
    Re: Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
    OOTB is a freetard and ADMITS it
    
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
    
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:17pm
    
    Re: Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
    Sure it doesn't affect me because of course I would never use something that I can't trust so I wouldn't be using a system that can be tampered with.
    
    Would you trust to have all your searches about some drug redirected to a Pfizer sponsored website?
    
    I wouldn't use that system, would you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 7:40am
    
    Re: Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
    Listen, you straight up dont understand DNS. The domain name system does not update from a single source, it updates from multiple concurrent sources in order to preserve authenticity. These kind of laws would require going back to single-source DNS (ICANN) and that was easy to intercept or pollute in order to ACTUALLY steal. Dan Kaminsky famously polluted world-wide DNS and took over a major website from an MS boardroom with a laptop.
    
    So no, you shouldnt have a say in what happens with DNS, and neither should congress or the senate. It doesnt belong to the united states.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
      "...you shouldnt have a say in what happens with DNS, and neither should congress or the senate. It doesn't belong to the united states."
      
      Wait...someone is against SOPA because it infringes on someone else's intellectual property. Ha!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
        You'll never understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @blaktron: You've already been deprecated by Castro.
        That an a lot of other reasons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:23pm
  
  Re:
  but think of the Money, wont you Please think of the money, in my wallet....er uhm children, yeah! that's the ticket, the pirates are eating children and it makes me poor, er I mean hey they are just nerds, we used to give them swirlies back in college, er.... You're a free tard!
  
  (how much did I score?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:54pm
  
  Re:
  They're already in place. Just ask ICE. The current process is a mere formality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 7:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    And its so awful! But not really, because right now they are just pressuring registrars, which is bad but not technically problematic. This would require literally changing how the worldwide DNS system operates, or would require the ENTIRE US backing itself behind NAT firewalls to take itself out of the global internet, like China. Think of how awesome that would be for the US economy....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:31pm

This is a disgusting smear from Castro, suggesting that the only people who might use alternative DNS systems are intent on breaking the law. Does he really not think that some people might not trust the US DNS system once it's been given orders for an official blacklist of sites to censor?

Actually, that's largely true Chubby. The only thing the US DNS system will no longer do is transport me to infringing or counterfeit sites. So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites? If anything I'd find it more trustworthy for NOT taking me to such places. I'd know that the alternate systems COULD (and likely will) take to places run by criminals who may let me get a free download along with stealing my identity and selling me bogus medications, a fake garment or defective brake shoes.

Sorry Masnick, policing the US DNS system makes it more trustworthy, not less. The ones seeking alternate DNS are the freeloaders and others willing to engage in illegal conduct. If their venture into that world leads them to misfortune, they have only themselves to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:34pm
  
  Re:
  Nice troll
  + 1 uber good
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re:
  I guess that's why so many people are flocking to Iran and China's DNS systems... I mean look at all the harmful content they have so courteously removed from their walled internets to keep from reaching the eyes of unsuspecting citizens. Truly they are shining examples of taming this wild west internet and bringing civility back to the masses.
  
  So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites? If anything I'd find it more trustworthy for NOT taking me to such places.
  
  Let's take a look at how well the government has done so far...
  
  They labeled 80k+ innocent blogs as being involved in child pornography
  
  They illegally censored a music blog for over a year before admitting that the site was legal and returning it
  
  They unconstitutionally seized a Spanish website that was declared legal twice by Spain's court without any due process in a case of clear prior restraint
  
  Yeah, I feel safer already... Where do I sign up?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites? If anything I'd find it more trustworthy for NOT taking me to such places."
    
    Let's take a look at how well the government has done so far...
    
    They labeled 80k+ innocent blogs as being involved in child pornography
    
    They illegally censored a music blog for over a year before admitting that the site was legal and returning it
    
    They unconstitutionally seized a Spanish website that was declared legal twice by Spain's court without any due process in a case of clear prior restraint
    
    Sooooo.... what does this have to do with safety? And btw, the Roja case is still in court Your Honor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They, that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It means free speech is in jeopardy, it means due process was gutted, it means abuse will cause a lot of pain, it means a very good terrain for corruption to flourish, it means no DNSSEC which means less security to sell anything on the internet, it means less security for communications on the internet, it means you will be a target eventually of all of those things too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey, Skippy? The Rojadirecta case still being in court has no bearing on what was stated. The site was seized unconstitutionally, and it was declared legal, twice, in the country from which it operates. Due process? WHAT due process?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re:
  The only thing the US DNS system will no longer do is transport me to infringing or counterfeit sites. So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites?
  
  You ever see one of those movies where a character is trying to get rid of a mouse and they start blasting holes in the walls with a shotgun? In the end, the mouse gets away while the house is ruined. The entertainment industry is that man, PIPA/SOPA is the shotgun, and the internet is the house. The result will be the same.
  
  The entertainment industry doesn't exactly exercise restraint when deciding what's infringing. If the music industry had their way, we would have never had player pianos, phonographs, cassette recorders, or MP3 players. If the movie industry had gotten what they wanted, we wouldn't have TV, VCRs or streaming video.
  
  Remember how the MPAA went to the government trying to get VCRs banned and calling them the Boston Strangler of the entertainment world? They claimed that to allow the VCR to be sold would kill the movie industry. The RIAA claimed the same thing about MP3 players. As it turned out, home video sales have now overtaken theater profits and digital downloads have outpaced CD sales.
  
  But yet, even with this track record of freaking out about every new piece of technology to come along, you still trust them to act responsibly when handed a virtual "kill switch" for web sites?
  
  Tell me with a straight face that you honestly believe that if PIPA/SOPA had been in effect six years ago, all the studios wouldn't have gone straight to the government demanding that it be scrubbed from the net.
  
  Or that web sites won't start policing everything their users contribute so as not to get labeled a "rogue" site. You know, like that notorious pirate site, The Internet Archive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rekrul, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oops, that should have read;
    
    Tell me with a straight face that you honestly believe that if PIPA/SOPA had been in effect six years ago, all the studios wouldn't have gone straight to the government demanding that YouTube be scrubbed from the net.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re:
  The ones seeking alternate DNS are ... others willing to engage in illegal conduct.
  
  Like expressing a difference of opinion, or practicing a different religion, or criticizing the government, or giving a bad review of a specific business practice, or exposing the illegal activities of a corporate entity, or...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Larry, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:42pm
  
  Re:
  Ah, a personal attack that then declines into the time tested "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide/fear" line.
  
  It's like you actually believe that ANY government can regulate ANYTHING at a working level. Show ONE example where that has EVER been true! C'mon, just ONE...
  
  Otherwise, just move along. No one buys any of your crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2014 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Superfund sites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re:
  Quote:
  Actually, that's largely true Chubby. The only thing the US DNS system will no longer do is transport me to infringing or counterfeit sites. So unless I'm an infringer, why would I suddenly "mistrust" the US DNS system because it doesn't take me to unlawful sites? If anything I'd find it more trustworthy for NOT taking me to such places. I'd know that the alternate systems COULD (and likely will) take to places run by criminals who may let me get a free download along with stealing my identity and selling me bogus medications, a fake garment or defective brake shoes.
  
  No, it will also signal that someone can control that stuff, so how long until someone has the bright idea to redirect all traffic from certain queries to only authorized websites?
  
  Would you trust that system?
  I sure wouldn't.
  
  Why would I let anyone decide for me what is legal or illegal?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why would I let anyone decide for me what is legal or illegal?
    
    Ummm, isn't that what laws and courts do every day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dementia (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In point of fact, no, they do not. They tell you what society says is legal or illegal. An individual makes those decisions for themselves. Granted, most of us take our society's beliefs into account before making those decisions, but we each make a choice of whether or not to follow society's rules.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't forget pirates they too decide what they want to do everyday.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Courts and the law are an enforcement tool not a decision tool.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 10 Dec 2011 @ 12:01am
  
  Re: The ones seeking alternate DNS are the freeloaders and others willing to engage in illegal conduct.
  Your name�s not McCarthy by any chance, is it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:25am
  
  Re:
  OpenDNS says hi.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAJikMARCer (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:54am
  
  Re:
  I can't even remember the last time I 'pirated' something but I sure as hell would be finding a non-US DNS server immediately. Why, if I'm not a pirate? Because I do NOT trust that the filtering would be ONLY unlawful sites. There is no due-process to determine if a site is unlawful or not. It's copyright holders who get to decide. And if such a law existed when Wikileaks was flaunting US government docs, why wouldn't the government have used this law to censor Wikileaks. Of course it would have been used that way.
  
  I've never been to Wikileaks and I don't go hunting for pirate media, so you are right that a US DNS server wouldn't affect me, but I would still switch purely on principle! This is a FREE nation and I will fight to keep it that way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johan Ouwerkerk, 17 Dec 2011 @ 8:33pm
  
  Re: anon
  Because it sets a precedent which is criminally trivial to exploit.
  
  1) Hack a DNS server (that stuff happens), rewrite some of its records to high value (frequently used) pages to a server under your control.
  2) At that server set up a page which displays the SOPA message, but also probes the visitor machine for vulnerabilities and when found exploits them.
  3) Profit.
  
  It becomes virtually impossible to detect which SOPA takedowns are legit and which are rogue, not within any reasonable timeframe. (Plus consider effects of erroneous SOPA application further messing things up.) Currently DNS tampering can be detected with some ease due to the page content or network routes being wildly different from what's expected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andre Metelo, 14 Jan 2012 @ 7:31pm
  
  Re:
  Until the US DNS System decides that accessing information on Stern Cell research is illegal, or Reading the Works of Karl Max is illegal. Shall I go on?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:05pm

Quite a lot of copy and paste contradiction, with pejoratives.
Classic Techdirt style. Opponents are ridiculous, idiotic, stupid, AND clueless, all at once.

>>> "How can anyone take this seriously?"

Well, I don't. It's just the impotent rage of ankle-biters -- who have suddenly found that the Big Dogs whose food they've been filching through a rat size hole can easily bound over the fence.

>>> "[Castro[ Instead, the purported security risks for users come about only for those Internet users who begin using alternative DNS services (i.e. those individuals intent on breaking the law). ...

[Mike] This is a disgusting smear from Castro, suggesting that the only people who might use alternative DNS systems are intent on breaking the law."

Not a smear but obvious conclusion. If you're attempting to get to blacklisted sites, then odds are at least high as to what your purpose is.

>>> "Does he really not think that some people might not trust the US DNS system once it's been given orders for an official blacklist of sites to censor?"

Er, worst that can happen with DNS blocking is can't resolve the address through that server. That doesn't obviously put one at risk of anything... except I guess this hypothetical loss of free speech. But will presumably remain plenty of other outlets for free speech; just find one not accused of symbiotic infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Larry, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:51pm
  
  Re: Quite a lot of copy and paste contradiction, with pejoratives.
  Ah, so easy to create a blacklist and have DNS block any site on it. That sure did solve the spam problem.
  
  Of course, you and your ilk don't want to solve /that/ problem because the spammers are making any money that /you/ could be making.
  
  Get a job. You'll be far happier with your life when you are a productive/contributing member of society.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 8:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Quite a lot of copy and paste contradiction, with pejoratives.
    Get a job. You'll be far happier with your life when you are a productive/contributing member of society.
    
    And you'll be far happier with your life when you're reunited with Curly and Moe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Quite a lot of copy and paste contradiction, with pejoratives.
      Ok pinky.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:34pm
  
  Re: Quite a lot of copy and paste contradiction, with pejoratives.
  Classic Techdirt style. Opponents are ridiculous, idiotic, stupid, AND clueless, all at once.
  
  Actually there are a fair few people here on TD and elsewhere who agree either somewhat or totally with SOPA/PIPA who are eloquent, civil, intelligent, like to understand both sides of any debate, and agree to disagree without becoming childish.
  
  Then there is you! ie: "ridiculous, idiotic, stupid, AND clueless, all at once"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:28pm
  
  Re: Quite a lot of copy and paste contradiction, with pejoratives.
  Opponents are ridiculous, idiotic, stupid, AND clueless, all at once.
  
  Hey, you've just described yourself aptly. About time you came around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 6:14pm

Like expressing a difference of opinion, or practicing a different religion, or criticizing the government, or giving a bad review of a specific business practice, or exposing the illegal activities of a corporate entity, or...

Liz, pick any site you wish that fits the description above and then explain to me how a judge might deem it to be dedicated to infringing activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:17pm
  
  Re:
  Where does it say a judge has anything to say about it? Hell, under the current proposals, all anyone has to do is cry "Infringement!!!" and down goes the site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Where does it say a judge has anything to say about it? Hell, under the current proposals, all anyone has to do is cry "Infringement!!!" and down goes the site.
    
    Ah! Another dope who's failed to read the bill. I guess if my position was as weak as yours, I'd have to make shit up too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Squirrel Brains (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, It is section 104 of SOPA. Actually, if you read and study the bill from the perspective of copyright law, 103,combined with 104 does what the previous comment was suggesting.
      
      What strikes me as interesting is that the proponents of SOPA on TD have several things in common
      1)An unusual trust that greater power put into the hand of those that already abuse power is ok;
      2)A simplistic view of reasons people do not wish to use filtered DNS
      3)A oversimplified view, coupled with a complete understanding, of how a DNS system works
      4) Some strange notion that SOPA is anything but a power grab with parts intentionally left ambiguous; ambiguity is greater to be used as a weapon to threaten litigation. It is expensive to litigate,and unless an accused company stands by some principles, they will cave to save the half a million to a million dollars
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yet another dope trying to get called "fucking liar" again!
      
      YADTTGCFLA.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 7:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Please cite the language within the bill that says a judge is required to close down the site? Since a judge isn't actually notified about the notice, but the counter-notice, at which point the site is already down.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 10:45pm
  
  Re:
  You really haven't been following patent, defamation, copyright, nor trademark cases lately worldwide have you?
  
  Most review sites that allow complaints either anonymous or otherwise about such things as dentists, legal modding OWNED products, just to name a few are not only being currently targeted (though mostly dismissed via anti-slap laws) but will be more open to being brought down because some peeved company somewhere does not like the bad review or critical analysis there product/service has obtained and will cry BREACH OF IP (Infringement) and the site will be brought down.
  
  Oh and the judge doesn't have to deem it to be infringing under SOPA, just that it might be in some way a party to infringing behaviour by some degree of seperation. And seeing as private action does not require court, only a Verified statement under oath (maybe not even that much) a review/critic site can be denied all revenue streams until at such time a judge deems otherwise IF the site has enough money to defend itself which it probably wont since its revenue has been taken away and even if the judge dismisses with prejudice no damages can be collected from the registrars, banks, etc due to absolute immunity on their behalf.
  
  Any more questions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAJikMARCer (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    In short a perfectly legitimate business/website would likely fail in the time that it took for everyone to realize that the accuser had no case. THAT is why we need proper due-process!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joshua Hager, 10 Dec 2012 @ 6:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But MAJikMARCer, due process takes too long.....I want them banned now because I don't like them. Would you be on my side if I threw lots of money at you? PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAASE ! ! ! !
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:08pm

Quote:
Opponents of PIPA/SOPA, such as the Internet Society and Crocker et al., argue that DNS filtering will �puts users at risk.�31 However there are no security risks from DNS filtering. Instead, the purported security risks for users come about only for those Internet users who begin using alternative DNS services (i.e. those individuals intent on breaking the law). Yet, as we have seen, to date there is little evidence that the average user will begin using these alternative DNS services. In fact, users will be unlikely to use an alternative DNS service precisely because of the security risks.

DNS filtering undermines something that is the core of every government, trust. Start messing around with that and not only criminals but everybody else will find a way to find what others started calling already "freeworld"(free as in freedom).
It also will make the position of the US that just this month, vocally said it was against a UN proposal made by the likes of Russia, China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan that introduced a draft resolution at the United Nations this year that would allow greater government control over the Internet in individual countries. The United States opposes the resolution.

Quote:
�When ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled and people constrained in their choices, the Internet is diminished for all of us,� Mrs. Clinton said. She added: �There isn�t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet. There�s just the Internet.�

Source: Clinton Urges Countries Not to Stifle Online Voices

Quote:
While efforts by countries like China to curb the Internet have been well documented, such steps by democratic countries have deepened alarm among free-speech advocates, even if the intent is to regulate harmful or illegal content.

�More and more countries are trying now to regulate and control the Internet,� Uri Rosenthal, the foreign minister of the Netherlands, said after meeting separately with Mrs. Clinton on Thursday. �And it is unacceptable that Web sites are blocked, Internet queues are filtered, content manipulated and bloggers are attacked and imprisoned.�

Source: Clinton Urges Countries Not to Stifle Online Voices

SOPA undermines not only the trust its people has on its own government it undermines the trust other countries has on American positions since those incongruencies will be noticed, who will listen to a government that can't get its rethoric straight?
In one front the American government says it needs to censor the internet with laws like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and at the same time have a piece mouth(i.e. Clinton) traveling all over the world saying others can't do it because it is bad, well the American government should get its story straight and decide what it wants, if SOPA and others laws pass that signals to others countries that the internet is fair game and the fragmentation of it will continue in an accelerated pace which means the US could become blind and lose much of the control and the perks that come with it or pass innefective laws that will do nothing against piracy but have great potential to harm everyone else and lose the trust people have on its own government, in a time where that trust is at a record low already, is like the US government want to get slapped silly again!

Quote:
Critics of PIPA/SOPA are trying to suggest that if a user is prevented from obtaining a pirated copy of the latest Hollywood film, this is an unlawful restriction of their Constitutional rights.

Of course anybody that has a different opinion is a criminal, now as a criminal let me say something, SOPA doesn't impair my abilities to acquire an illegal copy of something, not even a little, even if the internet ceased to exist somehow I still be able to acquire the illegal things and more important I still retain the ability to copy anything I see or hear so this futile attempt to "prevent" someone from obtaining a pirated copy of the latest Hollywood film is just bolox and every other country that implemented such things proved that, one recently that comes to mind is Belgium, where apparently all pirates in the course of a week found new ways to connect to the Pirate Bay, France didn't see piracy reduced even by 3 strikes and they are so scared to implement the law that they get hundreds of thousands of first letters but only send a few second ones probably expecting that people will stop when apparently traffic there has not dropped a bit is like the pirates didn't even noticed the law, the French are not even trying to hide that they are infringing diferent from the Swedes that saw a drop in internet traffic that has long go back to normal and people just moved on to things the government can't watch.

Soon every pirate in the world will be using decentralized search engines(goodbye Google), decentralized anonymous networks that can't be censored and that have embedded forums right there in the application which means uncensorable forums where they can talk freely.
See StealthNet for an example of that.

The problem is cultural, governments are trying to impose culture now and that is bound to failure, just like people couldn't stop Christians or Muslins or Hindus from being what they are I doubt the govenment will be able to stop pirates. It will be fun to watch though, because IP laws to be enforced at the public level need very intrusive laws that companies didn't mind and the public didn't mind, but they the public will not give their support when they are the targets of such laws and even companies will not get behind that since they too will suffer from more intrusive laws that will force them to add expenses that probably will cut into their bottom lines.

Quote:
Ironically, many of the voices arguing that DNS filtering does not solve the core issue, which is that pirated content is made available online, often are the same ones opposing digital rights management (DRM) technology that is created to achieve the very goal of eliminating pirated content.

If DRM was created to achieve that very goal of eliminating pirated content why doesn't it work? it didn't even slow it down, but it harms and burdens a lot of people who pay for the legal stuff. Pirates are not the ones annoyed at games that don't play and need to keep calling the help desk to get it to work are they? Pirates are not the ones that keep getting scary messages on their screens about how you are a thief and if you do anything besides watch it you will go to jail, only the people who fallow the law experience those things so of course they complain, people who put DRM tarnish the experience of something that was supposed to be enjoyable not an exercise in patience and tolerance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoggi, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:18pm

Re: Lazy bum
@Anonymous Coward

How about getting out there and scoring a REAL job? Why do the so-called "creative" industry think, they could just create something, even if it's of mediocre quality, then sit on their asses, do nothing else, and expect to earn a million bucks in handout money from everyone out there who actually has to work every day, then if a million bucks didn't happen to land in your bank account, scream "piracy!" and beg papa government to give you free laws and handouts.

Sure, we all love easy money, and you have the right to make your cash however you like it. But don't forget, that you're NOT entitled to it, and certainly NOT at anyone eles's expense.

How about actually adapting and working to reward your customers, and get them to buy your products, instead of meddling into the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:31pm
  
  Re: Re: Lazy bum
  @Anonymous Coward
  
  How about getting out there and scoring a REAL job? Why do the so-called "creative" industry think, they could just create something, even if it's of mediocre quality, then sit on their asses, do nothing else, and expect to earn a million bucks in handout money from everyone out there who actually has to work every day, then if a million bucks didn't happen to land in your bank account, scream "piracy!" and beg papa government to give you free laws and handouts.
  
  Sure, we all love easy money, and you have the right to make your cash however you like it. But don't forget, that you're NOT entitled to it, and certainly NOT at anyone eles's expense.
  
  How about actually adapting and working to reward your customers, and get them to buy your products, instead of meddling into the internet?
  
  So don't buy it. And don't steal it either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 7:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: Lazy bum
    So when SOPA actually doesn't contribute to the industry by pushing people to buy, don't throw up your hands (along with your bogus loss statistics) and ask for another law. You were given that chance to buck up when you got the DMCA. Now you're getting more legislation to do absolutely the same thing, at more cost to everyone else.
    
    You've been given enough rope. Now hang yourself with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: Lazy bum
    Cease and Desist troll, you been warned!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 9:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Re: Lazy bum
      This one is better
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: Lazy bum
    And don't steal it either.
    
    Of course not. Infringement is not theft, everybody knows that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re: Re: Lazy bum
    Imagine the cost of products if everyone you think might be stealing products, really were stealing products.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:06pm

ISPs or the U.S. government could use DNS filtering to block sites they do not like. But guns can be used by criminals to kill people too and that does not mean that we do not let the police or security guards have guns.

Is anyone seriously stupid enough to buy this half-baked argument? "Sure, we could use this to silence dissenters, but CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS AND SO DO POLICE!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:35am
  
  Re:
  Well, to be fair, Fox News recently called Norway a dictatorship because the police didn't brandish guns at every opportunity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws.org (profile), 9 Dec 2011 @ 11:32pm

The U.S. policies on the Internet should not be determined by the ideological points of view of a few network engineers in the IETF

The U.S. policies on the Internet should not be determined by the ideological points of view of a few legacy industries and its clueless shills.

FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 3:39am
  
  Re:
  The U.S. policies on the Internet should not be determined by the ideological points of view of a few network engineers in the IETF.
  
  Why not? After all, we built it. Without us, you wouldn't have an Internet to argue about. Certainly none of the politicians have the necessary intellectual capacity to do so, and as for the MAFIAA et.al., I believe we've long since established that they are clearly inferior people with markedly inferior minds.
  
  This is OUR work -- keep your hands off it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    That foreign freetard's mom only gives him a half hour of internet time a day. You'll have to wait till tomorrow for a reply.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that is your business how?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 3:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Boring troll is boring.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 3:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    It used to yours. Tough shit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loki, 10 Dec 2011 @ 5:05am

DNSSEC, as with many technical standards, is not an immutable set of rules carved by God on stone tablets.

Copyright, as with many legal standards, is not an immutable set of rules carved by God on stone tablets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
demented, 10 Dec 2011 @ 1:35pm

To anyone insisting that SOPA/PIPA would ONLY be used on pirated material, look at this:

http://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210 /

An original song repeatedly and untruthfully branded as being copyright infringement, merely because Universal hates the "rogue site" who sponsored it. It didn't take long for those corrupt worms to prove that this is just their way of quashing anything they don't like.

So, Anonymous Coward, anything to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i swear, 10 Dec 2011 @ 2:35pm

the only places i have ever seen such a retarded use of troll logic are in congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 5:20pm

What is funny in all of this is pretty much nobody uses DNSSEC, it's a protocol without much actual real world support. So it's sort of moot, because nobody is using it, nobody is supportihg it, and it is generally not available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re:
  So you don't think DNSSEC is important right?
  Please give me the address of your online store where you are trying to sell anything so I can redirect all your customers to my website that will sell counterfeits using your webstore as a template.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 5:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Important? I didn't say one way or the other. I said unused, unsupported, and unlikely to ever be fully implemented.
    
    It isn't used in the real world. Why is everyone up in arms about something they don't even use? Brainwashed idiots!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 6:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quote:
      It isn't used in the real world. Why is everyone up in arms about something they don't even use? Brainwashed idiots!
      
      Except for the root DNS servers that all use it, except for the US government, banks, Comcast and others.
      
      www.dnssec.comcast.net
      http://www.dnssec-deployment.org/
      www.thesecuritypractice.com/th e_security_practice/2011/12/all-paypal-domains-are-now-using-dnssec.html
      
      Fucking idiot!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 6:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You can check deployment using Firefox.
      
      https://addons.mozilla.org/cs/firefox/addon/dnssec-validator
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 6:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quote:
      It isn't used in the real world. Why is everyone up in arms about something they don't even use? Brainwashed idiots!
      
      Funny, according to people tracking it, everybody is jumping on it and the pace of adoption is growing not diminishing.
      http://secspider.cs.ucla.edu/
      
      How do you explain that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:29pm
  
  Re:
  Here:
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/24/dns_exploit_goes_wild/
  
  Do you do online banking?
  Do you buy anything online?
  
  All root DNS servers use DNSSEC, Comcast uses DNSSEC and is starting to be implemented, now you want to stop all of that because you are to stupid to understand the why it is needed?
  
  http://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2010/07/16/commerce-department-icann-and-veri sign-deploy-new-technology-enhance-
  
  https://www.iana.org/dnssec/
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions
  
  The not funny part is your total ignorance of the technology, getting your news from the entertainment industry for matters of security is like getting medical advice from a junky.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:38pm
  
  Re:
  DNSSEC is not important, who cares if you get redirect to a fake website while doing online banking right?
  
  You see DNSSEC is about piracy, it stops everyone including the government from tampering with the DNS domain so you can't redirect others without they noticing it, and so it is bad because you morons can't redirect "rogue websites" to ICE anymore but who cares that criminals will not be able to redirect you to bogus bank websites, bogus webstores or send you emails that seem to be coming from a trusted source, not that is not important, only that "rogue websites" can be blocked right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2011 @ 2:35am
  
  Re:
  It won't be so funny when somebody redirects you to phishing bank website and clean out your account, then the funny look on your face won't be of joy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 11 Dec 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  Really shows your lack of understanding. It still being developed, and it is hard. It needs to be done carefully, and rollouts are complicated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arden Henderson, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:29am

apostrophe typo
text: But it's main focus
error: it's
fix: its
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joshua Hager, 10 Dec 2012 @ 6:42am

Holy Cow
So I went and read the COICA article before reading to much of Mike Masnick's write-up, and wow. All I have to say is 'Wow'. The number of times Castro tries to slither out of answers to direct questions is just unsettling. I couldn't believe the comments Castro made when confronted about how right-suspending/unlawful something like COICA has he potential of becoming. I would think that if he was trying to carry favor in the senate for passing this bill that he would be presenting evidence of levels of checks/balances that could be put into place to prevent such high-level censorship rather than simply eluding to them on a 'We'll fix that later' stance. Let's just hand COICA a blank-check, because it'll be in the hands of people we trust. Mind you we don't know who these people are, but we've been told we can trust them by other people (we don't really trust)......hmmmmm......makes more sense if you don't think about it. I love it when people tell me what to think, then I don't have to spend my brain power on things like thinking. Makes life so much easier. *sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]