You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
September 21, 2018, 03:01:55 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: US Internet Black List  (Read 3278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AragemTopic starter

US Internet Black List
« on: November 18, 2010, 12:11:33 AM »
Has anyone heard about this?

A law allowing the government to blacklist or banned certain websites from the US is being considered in Washington.  There are a lot of sites demanding that this law be thrown out and petitions are linked to sign to stop it.

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2010, 12:30:25 AM »
Half of it isn't very well worded.

It's entirely a DNS based blacklist, which would run the risk of providing an impetus for an alternative DNS root. Some form of open dns root authority is the last thing the people pushing this law want to see.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2010, 12:33:56 AM »
Half of it isn't very well worded.

It's entirely a DNS based blacklist, which would run the risk of providing an impetus for an alternative DNS root. Some form of open dns root authority is the last thing the people pushing this law want to see.

Wow.. I see a lot of outside US DNS roots being used from now on.

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2010, 12:45:11 AM »
It would actually be needed inside the US. That's the conundrum. Someone or some federation of people (a few hundred servers and the talent to run them) creates a simple to use alternate root (for whatever reason) that doesn't have so much of the bullshit of the current system, actively gives squatters, spammers, scammers, and censors the finger, and so on. "If you're not a geek, just run this." and such.

I'm personally far more concerned about net neutrality. This blocklist has a solution that could radically improve the Internet as a whole. A breakdown in network neutrality, not so much.

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2010, 10:47:55 PM »
And it passed out of committee, 19-0.

http://www.itworld.com/internet/128208/senate-panel-approves-website-shut-down-bill

Quote
IDG News Service —

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a controversial bill that would allow the government to seek court orders to shut down websites offering materials believed to infringe copyright.

The committee's 19-0 vote Thursday to send the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act to the full Senate earned it praise from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill would allow the Department of Justice to seek court orders requiring U.S. domain-name registrars to shut down domestic websites suspected of hosting infringing materials. The bill would also allow the DOJ, through a court order, to order U.S. Internet service providers to redirect customer traffic away from infringing websites not based in the U.S.

...

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2010, 12:33:45 AM »
This is just a government power grab.  Their real targets are WikiLeaks, Drudge, and anything else that reports the news the corporate elite don't want us to read.  "Copyright" and "intellectual property protection" are just Trojan horses.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2010, 12:47:04 AM »
It's going to be used as such. The 1st amendment just tooka hit to the junk

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2010, 12:55:59 AM »
This is just a government power grab.  Their real targets are WikiLeaks, Drudge, and anything else that reports the news the corporate elite don't want us to read.  "Copyright" and "intellectual property protection" are just Trojan horses.

Wikileaks, maybe, but this is entirely targeted at sites outside of the US - people they would arrest.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2010, 01:04:13 AM »
This just seems to be screaming for a supreme court case. I'm sure that we'll be compared to china as well.

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2010, 01:23:14 AM »
One of the reigning conspiracy theories is that actions like this are, by intent or not, an attempt to return copyright to its original purpose as a means of censorship.

Offline Revolverman

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2010, 04:28:53 AM »
One of the reigning conspiracy theories is that actions like this are, by intent or not, an attempt to return copyright to its original purpose as a means of censorship.

Return to? I didn't know it left.

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2010, 12:34:37 PM »
There's barely a hint of it even being back to that point, and then only with the AP lawsuits and those are the laugh of the net.

The case would work along the lines of citing Wikileaks for copyright violation, putting them on the blocklist for that.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2010, 03:35:59 PM »
I wonder if they (Wikileaks) would scream loud enough that educators might look into it. Citation of materials that are copyrighted might be the next rung.

I'm not saying it WILL but there is a lot of worry about using refrences already. (I know Rupert Murdoc wants a dime for every line of his print anyone reads online and there are a lot of publishers who would like to do that too)

Offline Soran

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2010, 04:15:02 PM »
I find this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11773574 extremely worrying. Net neutrality is one thing, but what's happening over here is downright frightening. I'll let you read the article for yourselves and draw your own opinions...My opinion...very very bad!

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2010, 01:59:26 PM »

Offline rick957

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2010, 11:23:41 PM »
I'm really curious about this news item and I'm terribly uninformed.  I know there's shitloads of news sources on the web, but I'm more interested in interpretations or analysis from better-informed people, and I'm sure there's lots of those people around here.

My area of interest, more specifically:  is there a reasonable chance that this could put a major dent in the widespread accessibility of file-sharing of copyrighted works?

Also, I'm astounded by how little activity there's been so far in this very thread.  Does that mean the bill is totally unimportant and won't have much effect?  Or does it just mean people around here don't feel like talking about it much, for whatever reason?

Quote
It's entirely a DNS based blacklist, which would run the risk of providing an impetus for an alternative DNS root.

I'm a tech-know-nothing, but I take this statement to mean that as soon as such a blacklist took effect and began limiting widespread access to file-sharing sources on the net, users would quickly develop a technological workaround allowing them to continue file-sharing, by bypassing the blacklist-affected parts of the net.  Is that roughly right?  If so, how likely and how rapid would such a workaround be?  Could file-sharing on the internet be significantly crippled, even temporarily, by this bill taking effect?  Any insights would be much appreciated.  Thanks!

P.S. Why I care, personally, just if you're wondering about my biases:  I'm one of those people who believes the internet is in the process of destroying the commercial impetus for producing popular art and popular entertainment ... For example, to me, it appears that there is no such thing as popular music anymore, at least in the sense that far, far fewer artists are able to make a full-time living from their music, and the reason for that can be traced back to internet file-sharing and its effects on big business.  And, it looks to me like file-sharing will eventually have similar catastrophic effects on other types of art or entertainment:  movies, TV shows, games, anything copyrighted and shareable, basically.  All just my opinions, YMMV.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2010, 11:25:48 PM by rick957 »

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2010, 11:47:21 PM »
It is certainly primarily targeted at torrent sites, and will probably have some effect on them, but it's hard to say how much. People can always use custom DNS servers that don't obey the blacklist rules, which, again, leads to the risk of an alternate route developing. The bill has no provision to declare a given address range to be non-routable, so it does nothing to block access to someone who uses an alternate means of reaching the filesharing site in question.

Popular music is a bit of a different topic, but there are multiple factors involved with that. Excessive duration of copyright, industry groups creating artificial barriers to entry, and so on. Reducing copyright duration to something sane, like 30 or even 60 years, would make it a lot easier for people to sample and create their own music. The Internet is certainly a player, but it's also clear that people will pay for digital content, it just needs to be easy to do so.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future. Missing rooms of happy NC play and babygirls (they really do exist).
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2010, 04:28:55 AM »
Quote from: Callie
I wonder if they (Wikileaks) would scream loud enough that educators might look into it. Citation of materials that are copyrighted might be the next rung.
        I think in some fashion, we may already be in that ballpark:  Georgia State Univ. was sued a couple years ago for alleged overly expansive use of electronic reserves. 
http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/copyright-clearance-center-slammed-over-funding-lawsuit-against-university-libraries-ccc-uses-specious-defense-of-its-actions/

...  I haven't read it all yet myself, but here's something of an update on that. 
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2010/10/01/going-forward-with-georgia-state-lawsuit/

Offline Wolfy

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2010, 07:31:18 AM »
Well we all know 4chan isn't going to take this lying down. 0_o

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2010, 03:25:15 PM »
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/

And, naturally, they didn't even need the act to be passed. This went through ICANN, apparently.

Which will not go over well. It means the US government is exercising its capability to seize any domain, anywhere.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2010, 05:05:15 PM »
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/homeland-security-shuts-dozens-sites/

This should remove any lingering doubts about the intent of the blacklist law.  This is about fascism, plain and simple.  The U.S. Government anointing itself Emperor and Maximum Leader of the World.

I think the other nations of the world should get together and build as much of the root infrastructure of the Internet outside of the United States as possible.  Custodial powers over the Internet should be removed from the United States.

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2010, 05:15:00 PM »
This was done with a court order, and had nothing to do with the law mentioned in this thread.

If each one of the sites was US based, or the registrars were, then going through ICANN is not going to create that much of a fuss. If they weren't, however, that may cause a ruckus.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2010, 05:28:36 PM »
This was done with a court order, and had nothing to do with the law mentioned in this thread.

If each one of the sites was US based, or the registrars were, then going through ICANN is not going to create that much of a fuss. If they weren't, however, that may cause a ruckus.

The sites mentioned in the article were shut down with no court order.  Strictly because the government didn't like them.

Quote
"The owner of Torrent-Finder.net complained that his search engine was shut down without so much as a court order or prior complaint.

“My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the owner said, without being identified in the Torrentfreak article.

Earlier this week, Homeland Security shut down a popular hip-hop music site, RapGodfathers.com, which had nearly 150,000 members. The site claims it is compliant with copyright laws, as it doesn't host copyrighted materials. However, its users posted links to file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Megaupload, where copyrighted material may have been shared.

These domains are now "the property of Homeland Security," writes Gareth Halfacree at Thinq.co.uk, "And there's no indication that their original owners will ever be able to get them back."

America is supposed to be under the Constitution, not the U.N. Charter.  Our rights are not to be taken away merely because the powermongers in D.C. or the corporate elite find them to be nettlesome or inconvenient.  "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Offline Vekseid

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2010, 05:40:39 PM »
The sites mentioned in the article were shut down with no court order.  Strictly because the government didn't like them.

From the source of the article you linked to - the site I linked to:

Quote
Update: A spokeswoman for ICE confirmed  the seizures in the following statement. “ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time.”

So no. You are wrong.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2010, 05:58:16 PM »
From the source of the article you linked to - the site I linked to:

So no. You are wrong.

Well, that makes me feel a little better.  Though I'll be looking for a source other than ICE to confirm court orders were duly used.  ICE is the same agency that practices indefinite detention without trial, so their credibility with me on matters like this is rather scant.

Offline Jude

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2010, 03:50:58 AM »
according to online reports

Is where I stopped taking that news article on rawstory seriously.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future. Missing rooms of happy NC play and babygirls (they really do exist).
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2010, 04:54:49 AM »
         Jude, are you alright at the moment?  Looking at the article, it sounds like you stopped at the end of the first sentence -- and then felt a need to appear here only to say how confidently you're dismissing the whole discussion.  It also seems to me that you're attempting to ridicule the name of the source without doing any research about the story.  Unfortunately, the thread title is not "The Relative Virtue of Rawstory.com"! 

        We are all "online sources" of various capabilities, here.  Under that kind of logic, you could just as easily disregard this entire board -- no?

        Since you've left it to others to do the work of searching for another source that may or may not impress you (assuming you do actually care about something that's online ;)...  Perhaps you might consider the New York Times.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html

Or maybe take a look at the ICE speech linked from there:

ICE Operation in Our Sites

... And see whether you prefer to pop in just to wave that all away, too.  I found these by Googling from the Rawstory material for 10 min. or so.  I'm skeptical that you even tried to look for the basic story you've dismissed.

         At the least, if you're going to make the effort to poke at the discussion:  You could take a moment to say on precisely what grounds you concluded that nothing here is worthy of serious discussion.

   

Offline Jude

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2010, 06:43:37 AM »
Jude, are you alright at the moment?
Snarky personal attacks are not welcome.
Looking at the article, it sounds like you stopped at the end of the first sentence -- and then felt a need to appear here only to say how confidently you're dismissing the whole discussion.  It also seems to me that you're attempting to ridicule the name of the source without doing any research about the story.  Unfortunately, the thread title is not "The Relative Virtue of Rawstory.com"!
"According to" followed by some sort of vague supposed consensus or assumed authority is a fairly classic method of misdirection and bullshit.  I did finish reading, I didn't say I didn't, but that kind of sent off alarm bells in my head.  As far as Rawstory goes in particular, I know absolutely nothing about the credibility of the website, I was reacting to the article itself.

I didn't explicitly point out what was factually incorrect about the Rawstory article because Vekseid already had long before I posted.  There were warrants, your New York Times article corroborates this, and that's in direct contradiction to the very title of the Rawstory article (nevermind its content which I assure you it contradicts as well).  Anyway, my skepticism was fully validated.
We are all "online sources" of various capabilities, here.  Under that kind of logic, you could just as easily disregard this entire board -- no?
You should always disregard factual information spread on the internet unless the source is some entity whose credibility you can verify.  However, that does not mean disregarding other people's opinions or analysis.  Only fact requires that level of trust.

Serving as a witness of truth and commenting on that truth are two things which should be kept separate for a reason:  when you mix the two, confirmation bias is infinitely more likely to come into play.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 06:53:25 AM by Jude »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future. Missing rooms of happy NC play and babygirls (they really do exist).
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2010, 01:41:56 AM »
Quote from: Jude
I didn't explicitly point out what was factually incorrect about the Rawstory article because Vekseid already had long before I posted.
         Thank you for clarifying.  To me when a person says they don't take an article seriously, it can easily imply that they don't buy its entire direction.    I would also argue that such a vague and negative statement will often lead to doubts about whether the speaker actually read a piece.  When that piece happens to be the original source for the thread and there is no qualification to the phrase, I think it's obvious that there is ample room for a dramatic interpretation.  To the extent that you don't say what your premises are or even what specific matter you are responding about, there is no logical analysis of anything specific.  Since it's rather negative in tone and claims to shed light on something unspecified to do with Rawstory (which in turn was the OP's choice) [Edit: Sorry, maybe not the OP.  I thought it showed up earlier than it did.  I still feel it was a "baby with the bath water" phrasing of dismissal], then it's fair game for criticism of "rhetorical."  Then people tend to go guessing about what its target was, and reacting to that.  For my part, I might better have responded with: "What do you mean?"

Quote
There were warrants, your New York Times article corroborates this, and that's in direct contradiction to the very title of the Rawstory article (nevermind its content which I assure you it contradicts as well).
       I did notice some discrepancy in the number of site cases, although it's also possible that may be changing as people investigate.  So yes that is quite likely so, however...  I am still under the impression that the overall purpose of the thread is more to talk about a somehow "new" government campaign to regulate the Internet (at the very least, to the extent that someone gains ground through new legislation -- as Vekseid has mentioned).  Unless someone will argue that both 1) there is no new form of prosecution nor scope of enforcement here at all and 2) no effective change would actually follow the current political moves, then I am presently less concerned with under what specific authority the government claims to act.  So I have been reading through quickly, trying to get a feel for the topic.  I have found it rather difficult to reach a conclusion from the rather brief arguments. 

       I agree with Veks that ICE does not always play by the book, and I think that is a fair bottom line for concern here.  That seems to support an argument for greater vigilance rather than less.  In turn, that argument is consistent with the overall tone of the story as Rawstory presented it.   So honestly Jude, I remain befuddled about why you phrased the quip about Rawstory as you did at that time.  However, thank you again for trying to clarify.   

Quote from: Jude
Snarky personal attacks are not welcome.
        I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  The post just didn't strike me as very thoughtful, particularly when compared to several of your other posts.  Sometimes people have bad days...  We don't always post under the best of conditions.  I almost typed, "Are you having a bad morning somewhere?" But I don't follow what time of day it is there, so I didn't. 

       This time of day line should also serve as an example.  Facts may be ironic.  It has become fashionable on the Internet for people to call out, "snarky" as a defense in cases where an ironic view presented by others does not support one's own views of this or that.  This maneuver is pulled as if there is some foolproof universal regime to keep facts in life devoid of irony, and as if the mere expression of irony must be interpreted as offensive.  I don't think either assumption is reasonable.  If I responded to your post only by saying "Well I think your quip about Rawstory was snarky," I bet you would not be sympathetic.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 01:45:09 AM by kylie »

Offline Wolfy

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2010, 09:27:30 AM »
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wikileaks

An interesting read. ^-^

Especially looking at what our government calls other leaders...<_<>_>

Offline AtlasEros

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2011, 10:02:48 PM »
There are a lot of countries that already do this.  My company does business in Dubai and you cannot even get on Skype there.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: US Internet Black List
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2011, 11:04:08 PM »
I think that part of the deal wit Dubai might be related to telecom regulations.