Alternative DNS roots[1] will get increasingly popular if this sort of thing (and the DNS-based censorship ISPs are forced into) keeps going on unchecked (read: ICANN keeps sleeping). We may yet end up with an internet where DNS resolvers check multiple roots in descending order of preference, with the ICANN root last.
Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
81–90 of 108 posts
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
if we are talking about P2P DNS only, it is more like "namecoin". Tor do not have anything like DNS. You can have local directory, but it is more like /etc/hosts
Yes it does. It's called "Hidden Service" and you get a *.onion address ( https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en ) Although you cannot control what DNS name is given, so it's not a full DNS drop in.
this is not really a name, it is generated key/address/whatever. namecoin allow you to choose name, where in hidden service subsystem you can generate one (although, you probably can setup key generator to get desired name... like vanity bitcoin addresses..)
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#83Well, I finally caved in and purchased swomb.at. Seems like the US govt is determined to destroy the value of dot-com domains. I'm sure thousands of domain squatters are crying their eyes out right now!
So, if you moved to swomb.at, would you just redirect swombat.com to it? Is that a way people can have the best of both worlds? 1- you own the .com domain for branding, people understand it etc 2- your site isn't actually a .com Would SEO be hurt by doing something like this?
I'm a huge believer in fighting link-rot as much as possible, so unless the US govt seized my domain for some reason, I would make sure all swombat.com links would still work.
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#84So are there any TLDs that are safe from seizure? If so, which ones? If not, which ones are less likely to be seized?
'.', the DNS root zone, is considered the property of the US Dept. of Commerce, so, no.
However, I could see a seizure of a domain in a different country's TLD (ccTLD to be specific) causing a diplomatic scuffle between the US and the foreign country. I can't imagine France would be thrilled with the FBI seizing 'foo.co.fr' or something.
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are angry at the republicans in the US, yet in general, the left wants more government control over our lives.
Both sides of the Left-Right debate want more control. Gay marriage is only an issue because some Republicans feel they have every right to control your personal relationships. A few Republicans also want to ban abortion, which is again a ridiculousness intrusive government control. Let alone tapping every form of communication, tightening immigration restrictions, increasing law enforcement funding etc. Even the ide…
> marriage is only an issue because some Republicans feel they have every right to control your personal relationships
This is completely OT but marriage is by design, its very nature and tradition not a personal relationship. That's why you have a gathering (the wedding itself), someone usually perceived as important presiding, a party (the reception), why you take your vows in public, why its registered in often publicly accessible registry, why you announce it in a newspaper etc, etc. The concept is even established in the common law by which you can, sometimes and in some places, become married by "acting married" in public.
Marriage is for the society much more than it is for the people getting married. And in the western culture governments decided the terms of marriage (also, possibly more importantly, divorce) on and off since antiquity. It's not some new development.
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#86So are there any TLDs that are safe from seizure? If so, which ones? If not, which ones are less likely to be seized?
'.', the DNS root zone, is considered the property of the US Dept. of Commerce, so, no. However, I could see a seizure of a domain in a different country's TLD (ccTLD to be specific) causing a diplomatic scuffle between the US and the foreign country. I can't imagine France would be thrilled with the FBI seizing 'foo.co.fr' or something.
It's generally not technically possible for the US to seize individual domains located in ccTLDs, so that's a pretty moot issue.
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both sides of the Left-Right debate want more control. Gay marriage is only an issue because some Republicans feel they have every right to control your personal relationships. A few Republicans also want to ban abortion, which is again a ridiculousness intrusive government control. Let alone tapping every form of communication, tightening immigration restrictions, increasing law enforcement funding etc. Even the ide…
> marriage is only an issue because some Republicans feel they have every right to control your personal relationships This is completely OT but marriage is by design, its very nature and tradition not a personal relationship. That's why you have a gathering (the wedding itself), someone usually perceived as important presiding, a party (the reception), why you take your vows in public, why its registered in often pu…
[deleted]
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#88So are there any TLDs that are safe from seizure? If so, which ones? If not, which ones are less likely to be seized?
.local seems to be safe for now
.local conflicts directly with the mDNS protocol (used by Apple Bonjour and Linux Avahi service-discovery systems).
.is, however, is managed by Iceland. Iceland has been positioning itself as a haven for organizations concerned about free-speech and broad-sweeping censorship.
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#89I've said it before, and I'll say it again: _the US cannot be trusted with stewardship of the global Internet_. Wired suggests that some want to move this stewardship to the UN. This is not a solution. A still more decentralised approach is needed; if the Internet is to truly "treat censorship as damage, and route around it", no core Internet protocol can afford to have any kind of "root server", "switch board" or "r…
This, a thousand times over. I don't know why more people aren't saying it. We've got to build a better decentralized Internet.
Re: Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
"so it could loose value really quickly if it becomes perceived as a risky place to do business" How in touch are you with everyday users of .com domains? Do you think the majority of the individuals and businesses in this country or in foreign countries are doing things that will make them fear loosing their domains because the US might seize their domain? (These are people that in many cases support racial profilin…
>>>> "Also, when people access a site, they either type in a domain from a physical source, or more often they search or follow links." >> Where are you getting this from? See here http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/02/11/facebook-login
Quoting a post on daringfireball (about a story on readwriteweb) that has confused some foreigners hardly proves that "more often they search or follow links".