US Government Censors 70 Websites

http://www.osnews.com/story/24074/US_Government_Censors_70_Websites

by _b8r0 • 16 years ago

139 106 16 years ago

hsmyers• 16 years ago

While it no longer makes economic sense to manufacture buggy whips, perhaps there is a Renaissance in the construction and sale of jack boots?

jrd795• 16 years ago

I don't understand why so many people on this site defend intellectual property theft. I own a small software company that suffers from piracy every day. I worked day and night without pay for more than a year to write the software that I now make my living from. And after all that hard work the thugs and criminals at The Pirate Bay and elsewhere just steal it and make money off the ads or subscriptions. IP is a central and essential part of the world order and no single thinker in the piracy movement has advanced any serious alternative - and yes, I include Lessig in this.

Maybe the loud voices in this forum just enjoy stealing other peoples work without having their own work stolen, but bogus free speech arguments and hysterics about jack boots do not justify what is at it's core an immoral act.

Andrew_Quentin4• 16 years ago

I do not think the debate is about theft. The important matter is who decides that it was theft.

We have an independent judiciary and that is there for a reason. Whether terrorism or copyright infringement, the government has no right whatever to decide on individual cases and facts. That is the job of the judges.

Take the matters to court!

notahacker• 16 years ago

You don't need to think what TorrentFinder is doing is justifiable or constitutionally protected to think that government shouldn't have the power to interfere with DNS systems without due process.

araneae• 16 years ago

I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right to do whatever we want with it... and that includes giving it to friends. The problem with the Internet is that it makes it possible to bypass original sales in an unprecedented way because the cost of giving it to strangers comes at no cost to us.

Any solutions necessarily involves infringing on free speech (this) or infringing on an individual's right to do what they want with their purchases (DRM), so yes, I do support torrenting.

ScottBurson• 16 years ago

I haven't seen anyone in this thread defending intellectual property theft (though there are certainly people out there who do so) or the activities of these particular sites. Rather, what disturbs many of us, myself included, is government censorship without due process of law. We are concerned that once the precedent is laid, its use will inevitably expand to cover sites whose activities make the government uncomfortable for different reasons (WikiLeaks being a good example).

As a software author myself, I sympathize with your situation, but the risks here are much bigger than the loss of income to piracy.

tomjen3• 16 years ago

Economically it does not matter how hard you worked, only what value others put on it.

And secondly, but far more importantly, I for one am not willing to give up my freedom of speech and right of due process to protect your monopoly on a few specific bit patterns. We give murderers, rapists, even child molesters their day in court and the right to question the evidence brought against them, to question and examine witnesses, to be judge by a jury of their peers and to petition the government for redress of grievencess but if they help others find places where they can search for specific bit patterns and make a copy of those, we give them none of these rights?

At this point all that is left is realize that I have been trolled.

mambodog• 16 years ago

I'm sad to hear that you've been on the wrong end of software piracy. I guess it's easy to feel that the whole continuum of torrent sites and copyright infringement can be boiled down to one group, motive and morality, but unfortunately reality is a little more complex than that.

Detrus3• 16 years ago

Lots of people here sell software through subscription, or get revenue from ads. Others are satisfied with profits from various mobile app stores. Although there is piracy there, there are enough buyers because prices are cheap.

So the definite culprits of piracy are not "thieves" but bad pricing and inconvenient installation. The absence of "thieves" would not translate into more sales.

steveklabnik• 16 years ago

It seems to me like you're unwilling to listen to others' opinions on this topic, because it's too emotional of a topic for you.

You can't say "I'm disregarding all of these arguments" and then claim there aren't any proper arguments against intellectual property.

jdp232• 16 years ago

a couple of questions to those who are complaining about too many political stories here -- and i'm not being disingenuous , i really want to to know.

- do you see this as a political story? why or why not?

- some people here may be considering starting businesses where some of user-provided content they host might fall afoul of this policy. do you think this story meets the bar of being interest to the HN community?

Andrew_Quentin4• 16 years ago

Political is a vague term. I do not think anyone really knows or can define it without some decade long argument and a final consensus.

That the government can decide who is guilty however is not a matter of politics, but, fundamental principles.

As to your second question, this is something which effects some of the HN community, whether genuine original content producers or otherwise. Thus, I do think it is news related to technology of a relatively new nature, thus, I would say, yes it is or has the potential to be of interest to the HN community.

DanielBMarkham2• 16 years ago

Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests. Indeed, the only reason for political parties is to have places where various special interests can line up against each other.

In the past there has always been enough time to create a narrative so that the parties can "make sense" to the voters. One party doesn't say it's supporting trial lawyers: instead it's "looking out for the little people". Another party doesn't support the military-industrial complex, instead it's providing for the defense of the nation. In other words, its possible to spin these special interests in such a fashion as to appeal to the little guy. This makes people buy into what the government is doing -- the consent of the governed.

But the wheels seem to be coming off the trolley -- it's becoming apparent that technology is changing so fast that the political parties can't catch their narratives up with reality. When you had communists threatening to conquer the world for thirty years, there was plenty of time to make a strong case for a defense industry. When you had super-huge corporations threatening the citizenry with pollution and such, it was easy to make a case for environmental laws and enormous lawsuits.

But file-sharing? Photo-realistic-capable naked body scans? Imposing total data visibility into the world's financial systems? Declaring that Americans still owe taxes even if they leave the country for tax reasons?

There may be very valid and reasonable arguments to be made for each of these things, but in my opinion nobody has made them yet. Instead, we just have a fear of one thing trotted out -- terrorism, big corporations, whatever -- and then we're told that these things we have lost were for a good reason.

Making matters worse is that some special interests, such as the movie, music, and software guys, (and the security guys) have effectively bought off both parties. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, you're stuck with doing whatever these interests want. And its becoming more and more apparent that these interests will use the full force of law to go after anybody they see as an enemy to their cause.

Even though I'm emotional about this, I see no reason to rant and rave. It's not going to change anything, and getting emotional just gives other people something to make fun of. In my opinion this current trajectory cannot continue for many decades longer. That's just the way it is, no matter what each individual's opinion on each of these issues may be.

I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan, when asked why he left the Democrat party, said, "I didn't leave the party. The party left me."

I certainly hope the same thing doesn't happen to the consent of the governed in most of the world's major democracies.

EDIT: If you'd like a startup/technology angle to this, then my advice is not to go into business in any area that one of these interests might be involved -- unless you have strong political connections (or are willing to develop them). If you're able to develop those connections, however, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

jdp232• 16 years ago

Totally agreed. A couple more things that complicate it are that most of the people in power don't have a good understanding of the technology and its implications -- and that the media is one of the special interests here, and so is very selective in its coverage.

And as somebody who's thinking of doing social network startup, this kind of discussion is very very relevant to my technology and entrepreneurial worlds. Do I need to plan from the beginning to host outside the US -- and if so what countries make sense? what level of business risk are investors willing to tolerate, and is that changing? and so on.

Dove2• 16 years ago

Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests.

The US as a constitutional republic was designed to frustrate that tendency. Recent calls for the repeal of the 17th amendment (senators used to be selected by state legislatures; that amendment made it popular vote instead) are based on that argument.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252825/repeal-sevente...

   Under the original arrangement, senators had strong    
   incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that 
   their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators 
   who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas 
   House members were considered representatives of the 
   people, senators were considered ambassadors of their 
   state governments to the federal government and, like 
   national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject 
   to instruction by the parties they represented (although 
   not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). 
   And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the 
   national government only the power necessary to perform 
   its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and 
   building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the 
   federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as 
   war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level 
   after the crisis had passed. Today, as historian Robert 
   Higgs has observed, federal expansion creates a “ratchet 
   effect.”

   Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the 
   Senate as originally conceived was essential to the 
   system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the 
   division of the legislature into two houses elected by 
   different constituencies — was designed to frustrate 
   special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62 
   that basing the House and Senate on different constituent 
   foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . . 
   against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the 
   concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority 
   of the state governments before a law could enacted. By 
   resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency 
   base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment 
   substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on 
   interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for 
   the modern special-interest state.

tonystubblebine• 16 years ago

This is pretty interesting. Do you know what the argument was for passing the 17th amendment? What's the downside trade-off?

_delirium2• 16 years ago

While this "repeal the 17th amendment" stuff is a pet cause among some on the right, there is very little evidence that it would have the effects its proponents claim. Here is one rebuttal: http://volokh.com/2010/06/11/would-repealing-the-seventeenth...

Alex3917• 16 years ago

That's true for the short tail of big issues, but for the vast majority of smaller issues it's completely false. There are many issues where the government is willing to listen to grassroots activists, but there just aren't enough of them. A good example of this is drug law reform. State politicians have been generally willing to implement well written medical marijuana laws from grass roots organizations, but the problem is that there are probably less than 100 competent people working on this full time. Over 60% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana, but all of the drug law reform organizations combined get only 10k or so donations per year, and the vast majority of these donations are for only five dollars. (Despite the fact that roughly 85% of Americans under age 55 have smoked weed.) And this is an issue that's harder than most because of all the interference from the federal government. Anyway my point is that for most issues you actually can get the law rewritten in your state if you're actually willing to go out and put in the effort.

joe_the_user3• 16 years ago

Even though I'm emotional about this, I see no reason to rant and rave.

There actually is some value to showing one's emotion's here. It seems clear that a lot of this does involve ICE 'testing the waters' to see much people will push back. It's good indicate an "irrational" need to fight this, it will give them pause (I'd imagine evolutionary game theory would say that this is a kind of situation where anger serves an important strategic purpose - premature commitment is an important strategy for making an opponent back down).

If you'd like a startup/technology angle to this, then my advice is not to go into business in any area that one of these interests might be involved -- unless you have strong political connections (or are willing to develop them). If you're able to develop those connections, however, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Investment advice simply becomes mute, really. There is no limit to what could conceivably fall under the rubric "intellectual property".

DanielBMarkham2• 16 years ago

This was such a good thread, I wrote an entire blog entry as a followup:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1945814

anigbrowl7• 16 years ago

Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests.

One might as easily argue special interests have always used their power to try to corrupt governments. After all, government is not in the content-production-for-profit business, and legislation like the DMCA is designed to benefit established publishers and manufacturers whose business model is threatened by unlicensed distribution.

So we might as well ask what is the fundamental problem with business, that makes it preferable to enlist law enforcement in defense of its interests than to do well by offering consumers a value they can't get from content piracy? I think there is some merit to the argument that leaders in the content industry have bought off political interests, but if they were somehow restricted from doing so, wouldn't that be a violation of free speech too? That whole Citizens United case in front of the Supreme Court last year was based on the idea that spending $$$ to influence an election is just as much free speech as any other kind of political activity.

Even though I'm emotional about this, I see no reason to rant and rave.

No offense meant here Daniel, but that's exactly what you do. On almost any thread involving regulation or government intervention, it's become very predictable to see a mini-essay from you at the top of the thread, and it's almost always general in nature rather than addressing any specific of the story itself. You always aim to be non-partisan by mentioning both aprties, but in practice it's very obvious you're conservative: in the blog post you mentioned elsewhere (http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2010/11/im-done-here....) you spent 5 paragraphs castigating the left for their dislike of big corporations, before going on to say: 'Of course, the same can be said of the right and the "long war". Both sides -- in fact all sides -- have plans that are not working.[...]'

Now, I have no problem with your holding and expressing conservative views - indeed, I quite enjoy reading your posts. But this pretense of being above the fray and speaking from a position of neutrality just insults my intelligence.

srbloom• 16 years ago

Is this only a DNS block? Can you still get to these websites by pointing your browser directly to an IP address?

jrockway3• 16 years ago

Weird political rant at the end there. Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this; it could be a rogue employee at ICANN for all we know. Eventually someone will have to answer for this, and the answer might result in trouble for ICE.

The body scanners and patdowns are similar; while they are in use right now, it's far from certain that they will exist forever. There is just too much backlash.

So I wouldn't say that we are a police state yet. Some renegades have made decisions, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. Sometimes it looks like nothing is being done, but that's just because the machinery of the government is slow.

Hell, 19 prominent senators couldn't even get their "censor the Internet" bill through Congress, even though they really wanted it. The system works!

patrickaljord• 16 years ago

> Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this

Yes they have: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1944190

jrockway3• 16 years ago

Now it's time to wait to see what the legal response is. I am sure the EFF and ACLU are more than a little upset about officially-sanctioned censorship. I am sure the courts are interested in determining whether or not domain names are property that can be seized by Customs.

(It would be especially interesting to see what would happen if the DNS server would only service requests from areas in the US that are more than 200 miles away from the border; territory that ICE admits they have no jurisdiction over.)

zabraxias• 16 years ago

The body scanners are supported 81% by one poll and 65% by another. For what it's worth it seems fear mongering has worked wonders.

Want to disagree with me? I'll call you unpatriotic.

Beanblabber• 16 years ago

ter·ror·ism Noun: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

jrockway3• 16 years ago

The body scanners are supported 81% by one poll and 65% by another.

Among people who have never set foot in an airport.

aik2• 16 years ago

>Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this

Just go visit torrent-finder.com and read the seizure note by ICE.

wladimir2• 16 years ago

Pretty shocking. Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time.

But I don't agree that this is a case of forcing anything on the world, com/org/net are US domain extensions, so I guess they have the right to control those. We're free to not use US domain names.

On the other hand, with ACTA the USA will force its view on the world.

JabavuAdams• 16 years ago

> Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time.

This is an unintentionally funny sentence, because the US essentially created banana republics. See United Fruits Company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

wladimir2• 16 years ago

Yes, the US created banana republics. Can't argue with that..

But the banana republics are going forward, while the US seems to be going the other way. Just look at the poor/rich divide, for example.

ig12• 16 years ago

Wikileaks did have their name seized in the US, it happened as part of the "Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit" - but it was overturned with the judge citing First Amendment concerns (ACLU and EFF filed motions in Wikileaks defence).

Andrew_Quentin4• 16 years ago

sources?

ig12• 16 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_...

redfloatplane• 16 years ago

Some observations:

* I checked one of the sites they blocked at random, and they're using Google Analytics to track views. GA can be used to track a hell of a lot of things, as I'm sure every reader of this site knows, including location of views. They're also using Pikwik analytics. <speculation>Pikwik is OSS, so they could have modified the code to do some thing GA doesn't.</speculation>

* Torrent-Finder.com had about 1.7million page views a day[0], so I suppose it seemed like a good target. However, many of the other sites blocked don't even register. In fact, they all seem like those extremely shady sites that very few people would ever actually visit. Torrent-Finder.com seems to have been the only properly popular site on the list (onsmash.com has rather high pageviews also, ~610,000 pv/d) <speculation>My question is why the hell did they hit torrent-finder.com when virtually every other site on the list probably couldn't have kicked up a media storm?</speculation>

* Every site is now hosted in Charlotte, North Carolina. DHS ICE seem to have some sort of facility there, but I've not been able to find much info on it at all. <speculation>Torrent-finder.com seems to have been hosted in Egypt beforehand. Does this affect the legality at all?</speculation>

* The two (as far I as i saw) most popular sites, onsmash.com and torrent-finder.com, had their traffic peaks during the second half of 2009[1]. Furthermore, the majority of traffic for Torrent-Finder.com was well outside the USA - eastern Europe, mostly[2].

* The sites that have been seized seem to mostly have been sites to buy knockoffs of designer clothing/accessories/what have you. Not as many seemed to be file-sharing websites.

[0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=torrent-finder.com [1] http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com%2C+onsmash... [2] http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com&ctab=0...

<hyperbole><opinion>To me, it seems the only real answer is to use alternate DNS roots. This one's been compromised.</opinion></hyperbole>

smokeyj2• 16 years ago

The government is censoring our means of communications, end of story. If they see it as their role to control my information, it doesn't matter if we find a new DNS system, their agenda is set. My DNS server is not broke, the government is. Lets fix the problem, not the internet.

sukuriant3• 16 years ago

"My DNS server is not broke, the government is. Lets fix the problem, not the internet."

Yes, the government is broken in this regard, but I would contend that your DNS is broken, too, and here's why. Your DNS provides your computer with directions to the next point of interest. Right now, it's pointing you to where you don't want to go because it's been told to, or the government has illegally seized the final location, etc. In this way, the DNS server is ~broken~. Not in its ability to look up map values, but in its ability to provide the correct ones.

If your GPS only told you where govn't controlled gas stations are, and you wanted to use Non-Govn't-Standard, you'd change GPSes, finding the current one unsatisfactory, or perhaps broken. (where broken in this context means "not doing what you want").

wyck• 16 years ago

Regardless of the current conundrum, this is akin to testing the waters, without using the normal legal process. A global registrar that controls address's with very little "real" insight by any citizens or international community? Sounds like a problem that has been waiting to happen for a long time now, this decision was no mistake.

At first I was angered, but then I realized this is a good thing, they are shooting themselves in the foot. We don't need ICANN at all, there are already alternative DNS systems out there waiting for an opportunity for a mass exodus..

They do not control the internet and they will find that out very fast if they feel like making this common place.

ps. I wrote this after reading another post about a godaddy site that was "supposedly" on this and blamed on ICAAN. I had not read the about the homeland security warrant.

Andrew_Quentin4• 16 years ago

what are the alternative DNS systems?

kgo3• 16 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

grantheaslip7• 16 years ago

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance:

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-sea...

Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. I'm not familiar with every site personally, but I have little doubt that they were all involved in flagrant copyright infringement.

And looking at torrent-finder.info, I have no doubt that 99.99% of the people going to that site were going there for the purpose of stealing stuff, not finding linux distros. The cheeky incredulity with which fans of these sites say "it's not their fault that everyone that uses their site is using it to traffic stolen goods!" is laughably transparent.

The western world is moving away from manufacturing physical goods, and these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either. What's going to be left? Finance?

There's a totally legitimate slippery slope argument to made for not blocking websites, and this story does smell bad in terms of legal due process, but I have a really hard time feeling sorry for the degenerates who ran theses sites.

gojomo7• 16 years ago

these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is less new music being produced today? Or is more?

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more?

There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the evidence so far, seem to be one of them.

good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth.

First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum.

Then...

Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal hearing?

grantheaslip7• 16 years ago

Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews.

And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet.

And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.

anigbrowl7• 16 years ago

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more?

Post ho ergo propter hoc fallacy, there. The technology of making a film/video has become vastly cheaper than it used to be. This has been a far bigger influence on the economics of production than the ability to get copies via unauthorized sharing. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to make your money back than it used to be. File-sharing is partly responsible, but is only one factor among several.

First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum.

Yes, losing your domain is just like being sent to a concentration camp. I'm not asking you to support this (I don't) but let's keep a little sense of perspective here, shall we?

thevectorist• 16 years ago

> What's going to be left? Finance?

Advertising. It seems to me that money from advertising pays for most content nowadays.

grantheaslip7• 16 years ago

Advertising for what? Other content that's also supported by advertising? Someone has to be paying for something at some point in the chain for advertising to make sense.

nchlswu• 16 years ago

with sites like "handbagcom.com" I can see your point

But w.r.t content, sites like DaJaz1 or OnSmash were more or less embraced by the industry (industry relevant to their product). Labels would submit content and bloggers would voluntarily with hold music from their reader even with a leak. It was a (relatively) good relationship. It demonstrates how these sites /can/ be embraced.

jscore• 16 years ago

It's a good contrarian point, but why downvote? He's not trolling but just stating some good points.

Take a look at the list of sites closed. Last time I checked I don't remember that selling unauthorized content is legal.

   louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
   lv-outlets.com
   lv-outlets.net
   lv-outletstore.com

Or is everyone drinking the same Kool Aid that US is now a police state?

_delirium2• 16 years ago

I downvoted it for the uncivil language. Surely it is possible make a contrarian point without peppering one's rant with "scumbags", "idiots", "degenerates", etc.? Maybe that would be acceptable language if we were talking about serial killers or people engaging in torture, but surely we can have a more rational, level-headed debate about file-sharing on all sides?

joe_the_user3• 16 years ago

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance

The problem is not never who blocked but how and why they were blocked.

Freedom speech only means something if it's freedom for those whose speech we dislike.

It's natural that those who are angling for wide-ranging control would start by attacking "the scum of the Internet". In this instance, being able to take down website essentially without due-process means that ICE has a tool which can be used on many other targets.

grantheaslip7• 16 years ago

This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about freedom to sell stolen and counterfeit goods. You're trying to turn this into something it's not.

timurlenk• 16 years ago

Could it be that the DNS system needs to be decentralized and deregulated? How difficult is it to implement a P2P based name lookup system?

cosmicray• 16 years ago

The DNS root servers are already decentralized. The issue here is that the domains in question are registered with registrars (and/or utilizing name servers) that are under US legal jurisdiction.

If you want to do something that you don't want US authorities having control over, then move it to a jurisdiction that does not care what the US says (and good luck finding such a place, unless it was Iran or DPRK).

dedward• 16 years ago

At a basic level - a court order from the US (whatever level of court) issued directly to, say, a registrar in the UK would have absolutely no legal standing as far as the registrar was concerned.

The US may have a heck of a lot of swing when it comes to overall global policy, but that doesn't mean foreign entities just, like, obey their court orders - that would be absurd.

joe_the_user3• 16 years ago

If the US government becomes the agent of whoever has money and claims intellectual property, there really is no limit to how far this can go.

All any company-with-influence has to do is patent some things, put a claim against a competitor and shut them down long to put them out of business. It's not just that it lets companies dominate industries. It is that it makes such domination more profitable than anything else - thereby sucking up all available investment funds. What would you invest once the state start "picking winners".

It's really the same old story - corruption destroys enterprise.

adammichaelc2• 16 years ago

Due process & a trial by jury, anyone?

risotto2• 16 years ago

I'll play a bit of a contrarian and say that I'm not the least concerned about this.

The Internet is a grossly complicated system, and the ability to have nfljerseysupply.com resolve to your website is far from a given right. ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work. Each player has to cooperate to make your website reachable, therefore each player has the ability to make your website hard or impossible to reach.

It's scary if the US government has powerful legal tools to take down any website (see: China), but the US govt. has a track record of going after only a few criminals, not performing political censorship. So do all the players. Also, COICA, which would make this act easier, got gummed up in the Senate.

I don't know any details, but would you expect counterfeit websites to remain humming along while DHS raids warehouses involved with illegal manufacturing, importing or exporting of counterfeit goods?

The torrent search engine is a different beast, and by following legal precedent I'd expect the owner to be cleared of wrongdoing if and when it goes to trial. I also suspect the owner is being disingenuous, and was operating the site under a shell, making it difficult to find him and serve him warnings or legal papers.

I also interpret this as a sign that the media corporations are fucked. This is the best they can do with their global power, influence and money? Take out some counterfeiters and one lowly search engine?

Yes, we must be diligent against the government and corporations, but if this is all they have then it's nothing I'm going to get worked up over.

smokeyj2• 16 years ago

> ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work.

One of these things is not required for my browser to work. Hint: it starts with "govern"

risotto2• 16 years ago

ICANN, world governments and the entire TLD system are incestuously intertwined. ICANN is a US corporation mandated by Clinton and George W. Bush.

The Internet is ARPANET.

NginUS• 16 years ago

I'm shocked, and awed.

cies• 16 years ago

in the ny times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?...

link to the official announcement on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGziXOPO2A

what i find most disturbing is not the action against IP infringement on US territory. what i find disturbing is:

1) the announcement that "suspected criminals would be pursued anywhere in the world." They say "American business is under assault from counterfeiters and pirates", sure this is true, but why should the US care that this happens outside of their country?

2) the freedom of a modern democracy is completely underminded by this measure. one should be innocent until proven guitly (by a court case -- in this case there was no trial), and secondly one has the right to free speach. both of these rights have been compromised by the measure. this --in my opinion-- voids the moral supriority of a modern democracy, and puts the US on a list of countries that cannot guarantee basic freedom for its citizens (like China).

makmanalp• 16 years ago

I wonder what the EFF's position on this will be.

trotsky• 16 years ago

End to end DNSSEC deployment would prevent an attack like this once clients are rejecting any unsigned records. At least in addition to the root name servers the seizing party would need to convince the TLD maintainer and the customer's registrar to sign the new zone files.

All the more reason for you to sign your current zones (including .org, .info, .us and .eu) or pressure your registrar and TLD maintainers to implement DNSSEC yesterday.

sukuriant3• 16 years ago

My question is: "What do we do now?"

ck2• 16 years ago

It's just big government rubbing the back of big industry, nothing new, just the format has changed.

It's all about money and who has the biggest lobbyists.

Also remember that making lots of laws and then enforcement is a big income generator for government on all levels.

patrickgzill• 16 years ago

Camel's nose is now under the tent...

Rabidgremlin• 16 years ago

As a bit of a though exercise, I just invented the 4LW 'protocol' for remembering the IP addresses of seized sites: http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-wo... :)

jaekwon• 16 years ago

how about a website that tracks these censorship activities

aik2• 16 years ago

I imagine part of the reason for them choosing these sites was simply to test the public reaction. I'm sure there are thousands of other "shady" sites out there that they could've chosen in addition to these.

US Government Censors 70 Websites

Related Stories