OpenDNS Tells Congress Not To Create The Great Firewall Of America

from the speak-up dept

When I went to Washington DC a few weeks ago with other entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, one of those whom I had the pleasure of meeting and walking the halls of Congress with was David Ulevitch, the CEO of OpenDNS, the world's largest DNS and internet security service. His service protects over 30 million people every day, and is currently used to protect people in approximately one-third of every public K-12 school. Hearing his story and his concerns about PROTECT IP and SOPA was really eye-opening. He's someone who clearly understands DNS and DNS/IP blocking better than probably anyone. And he told me that if SOPA were in place when he was first creating OpenDNS, he wouldn't have bothered. The liability would be just too great.

David has now penned an open letter to Congress, which we've embedded below, asking Congress to reject SOPA and PROTECT IP as being extremely bad bills that will have massive unintended consequences, hurting jobs and internet security at the same time. Here are just a few excerpts:

It’s likely that if SOPA and PIPA existed when I started my company, we would have incorporated outside of the United States and all of the jobs and investment that I have put into the economy would have been taken elsewhere. I expect many businesses will make the decision to incorporate elsewhere should this legislation pass and it’s possible that existing corporations will relocate to more entrepreneur-friendly countries.

My company invented many of the specific techniques that SOPA and PIPA would require all domestic Internet Service Providers and companies like mine to employ. Needless to say, we understand the censorship technology being proposed in this legislation and we are deeply concerned. While the aims of protecting IP and reducing piracy are noble, there are many reasons why SOPA and PIPA are dangerous as currently written. Here are the three that impact my business most:

1. It will, by definition, be overbroad, as there is no way to censor only illegal content without harming legitimate uses on sites as well. This is particularly true in light of the broad notion of “sites dedicated to infringing activity.”
2. Through their requirements to block websites, these bills will create a domestic Internet firewall designed to censor websites equivalent to the “Great Firewall of China” that is used to suppress information. If we implemented such a solution we would be setting a terrible example for the rest of the world, including countries we criticize for the same behavior like Iran, Syria, and China.
3. They will burden companies with an onerous level of liability for all user-generated content. What the bills propose would be akin to requiring the phone company to be responsible for the legality of every phone call that takes place. With that kind of regulation, companies will spend more on lawyers and litigation than they will on hiring and innovating. Existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already provide a satisfactory legal framework to remove copyright infringement and enforce intellectual property rights.

It's difficult to argue that Ulevitch doesn't know what he talks about. He runs the largest DNS provider in the world. How much longer will Congress continue to ignore the people who actually understand the technology they're trying to regulate?

Filed Under: congress, david ulevitch, dns, great firewall, protect ip, sopa
Companies: opendns

OpenDNS Comes Out Against COICA Censorship

from the good-for-them dept

Broadband Reports points us to a blog post from OpenDNS's founder and CEO, David Ulevitch, highlighting the dangers of COICA. He notes that services like OpenDNS already allow individuals the choice to block access to certain websites, but having the government declare entire sites blockable at the DNS level is definite trouble -- especially considering how much accidental copyright infringement there is.

What COICA proposes would induce, and in some cases, force ISPs -- including yours -- to block websites for you without your input. The Internet is a global phenomenon and at OpenDNS we serve a global audience with customers around the world. If we are forced to block something due to a mandate by the U.S. federal government it would impact all our users, not just those in the U.S. That's a terrible precedent for the U.S. government to set.

Furthermore, as we've seen with the ongoing Wikileaks.org saga, the government will try and utilize whatever resources it can to take sites offline. There is absolutely no need to arm them with a tool to automate it, let alone one that sits outside of any judicial review as COICA does.

Blocking a domain name is black and white act, meaning that if the Justice Department decided that one aspect of a website was enough to make infringement "central" their only recourse would be to block the entire website rather than systematically removing the infringing portion. For many sites this would lead to massive censorship of data and speech that was non-infringing.

While it looks like there isn't likely to be much movement on COICA in the lameduck session, it'll definitely be back next year. It's important that more people recognize that COICA is all about censorship before the bill goes much further.

Filed Under: censorship, coica, copyright, dns
Companies: opendns

Why Is Verizon Wireless Blocking OpenDNS?

from the this-won't-go-over-well... dept

The Washington Post recently ran an interview with OpenDNS founder David Ulevitch, where he notes that Verizon Wireless appears to be blocking OpenDNS, such that users cannot easily route around Verizon Wireless' own DNS services. This seems like an odd decision for Verizon Wireless -- especially at a time when the government is seriously considering network neutrality regulations. You would think that the company would recognize that blatantly blocking a competing service from being used might attract some attention. Perhaps Verizon Wireless is hoping that people won't care because "OpenDNS" sounds boring? Or perhaps they're still working on this belief that "wireless" plays by different rules?

Filed Under: blocks, net neutrality, opendns
Companies: opendns, verizon wireless