Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

texasattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 323 posts

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#281

Post by jmclnx »

Bender wrote: post #271
jmclnx wrote: post #68

Well the site does not present Texas in a good light. Their .gov site presents me with this. Looks like they need to worry about their own site instead of worrying about out of state sites. >Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead > Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, ema…

If you add this [1] function to your shell and do fp www.texasattorneygeneral.gov What do you see? Do you get the same fingerprint? I get: Testing via IPv4: texasattorneygeneral.gov. 104.18.152.79 104.18.94.91 sha1 Fingerprint=D7:6B:D1:D8:58:5B:16:4A:0B:D8:41:5F:FF:4E:DA:2F:FA:90:4F:4D sha256 Fingerprint=94:4F:66:36:A5:AA:AF:17:3A:FD:9C:B6:F0:79:95:17:62:1C:8A:B8:B3:44:61:DD:61:BB:C1:26:C6:77:4F:0F notBefore=Jul 4 12…

This is what I get:

    Testing via IPv4:
    SHA1 Fingerprint=A3:27:99:AA:0A:21:D8:11:B1:86:6E:CC:3A:12:CA:EC:2E:ED:F6:DA
    SHA256 Fingerprint=0B:77:CB:2F:80:87:98:6B:A8:C3:75:E7:4B:BF:04:4E:C5:5A:CD:00:7A:78:E9:FD:32:2A:72:24:4D:B1:79:EF
    notBefore=Jul 17 03:19:04 2026 GMT
    notAfter=Oct 15 03:19:03 2026 GMT

    Testing via IPv6:
But the distro I am using is still on openssl v2, patched with recent updates

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#282

Post by calvinmorrison »

walrus01 wrote: post #144
calvinmorrison wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any state can issue a warrant and extradite Americans from any other state. Something to do with catching runaway slaves. It's gonna catch up with us when California starts charging me with a crime for something about age verification or when Texas tries to extradite abortionists

Individual states have already been attempting to extradite people from other states for the crime of mailing early term abortion medication across state lines, for example: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=US+state+...

seems like we have a problem sir

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#283

Post by belorn »

wolpoli wrote: post #60

Honest question: what is the ultimate end game if at some point a court in another country orders a domain be reinstated? Do we end up with a domain registration system per country?

The ultimate end game if too many countries would pull at the unified single root that is the domain name system and ip address space, would be a split root. Different countries would resolve .com to different places, and packages going to one server will be going to an other, and people on one side will not be able to communicate with people on the other side since packages would no longer be globally routeable.

In concept, IANA and the group of global stakeholders could move the whole thing to a different country if US becomes too much trouble.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#284

Post by belorn »

inigyou wrote: post #73
wolpoli wrote: post #60

Honest question: what is the ultimate end game if at some point a court in another country orders a domain be reinstated? Do we end up with a domain registration system per country?

We literally already have one of those. Each country has a .XX TLD, and all other TLDs are for the USA.

ICANN policy is very different for country code TLD and generic TLD. Every country (with minor exceptions) decide over their own TLD and thus decide whatever rules they want. It is explicitly a hands off approach in their management of the TLD's.

Generic TLD are different. ICANN dictate to different degree each generic TLD, and is also the one that give accreditation to registrars. ICANN has given different companies the role of operating and handling databases and registration systems, like Verisign with .com, but it is still ICANN that dictate policy. ICANN could decide tomorrow that Verisign is no longer suitable to run the operation of generic TLD's and thus move it to a company located in a different country.

Moving the operations of generic domains to a less US-centric location is not a new idea, same with the legal locations of the organizations that are ICANN and IANA. As I understand it, they are mostly located in USA as a matter of history.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#286

Post by fc417fc802 »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #219
fc417fc802 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .. which is very different from ... And yet still an attempt at extraterritorial overreach. Regardless, I imagine that the rest of us who don't do business in the EU will continue to disregard its very existence. (Except in principle when we write negative comments about it on the internet that don't in practice matter whatsoever, such as this one that you're reading right now.)

How is it extraterritorial overreach when you acknowledge in the same comment that you can ignore it because you aren't in the EU? Unlike the site that is the subject of the thread, which has actually been subjected to extraterritorial overreach. This criticism and false equivalency is ridiculous.

I wrote "an attempt at" did I not? Attempted murder and murder have the same intent behind them despite the fact that the former failed. Attempting to claim that as a false equivalency is what's ridiculous.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#287

Post by monksy »

inigyou wrote: post #246
monksy wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a small corrupt country. The only thing slightly redeem about about them economic wise is their gas reserves. The way they run their state is very similar to a corrupt nation as well. They still want to break away from the US.

So like Russia.

Yes, but Russia has the ability to operate independently. Texas pretends that they can, throws a fit when they have to support others who support them, and whines when they aren't supported.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#288

Post by joquarky »

Henchman21 wrote: post #279
tstrimple wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns are good and equal freedom. Boobs are bad and lead to degeneracy. I hate this place.

Its only because every last thing in modern life is based on a lie.

Most of these lies can be traced back to someone controlling something to preserve or increase wealth.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#289

Post by otterley »

inigyou wrote: post #280
otterley wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course CSAM isn’t protected. This story isn’t about CSAM though.

So porn isn't protected speech?

Porn is protected speech, with the exception of CSAM and "obscene" materials. You do understand how exceptions work, don't you?

If you have further questions, ask an attorney who specializes in First Amendment law. I also recommend law school.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#290

Post by otterley »

inigyou wrote: post #248
gamblor956 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn is speech. This has been litigated several times by SCOTUS. Obscenity is not speech.

It appears that in Texas, porn is considered obscenity.

Texas can't make that decision unilaterally. They'll have the First Amendment to contend with.

Besides, that's not even what this case is about. This is about access to pornography, not about the right to produce or disseminate it with or to consenting adults. Even if the latter rights are protected under the First Amendment, the courts have never said that Federal and state governments cannot restrict minors from accessing it.

Post reply on HN