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

US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 228 posts

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#101

Post by dpatru »

yolesaber wrote: post #15
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

What can be done is encouraging more engineers and scientists to run for offices in the United States Government.

China's leaders are engineers. It just helps them be more repressive. Rather than engineers, we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government.

The problem we have isn't that people in government aren't bright. They are. It's that they want government to solve too many problems.

When you have power, it's tempting to try to solve problems through imposition (by passing laws, e.g., network neutrality) rather than allow people to work out their differences peacefully (through the marketplace).

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#102

Post by jeroen »

zeteo wrote: post #89
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

What is the base for your unsupported assertion that the judge is a "dinosaur who know[s] nothing of technology policy"? If you had read the ruling, you'd have seen there's a lot of technical detail in it. Plus, the article is probably also incorrect, see my comment below.

Your comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3292687

It looks like you're wrong, though. See my response there.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#103

Post by jcr »

ajross wrote: post #61
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

You appeal to a higher court. Courts make mistakes. The system is designed to handle that. Let it work. Relax, basically. This won't stand. That's not to say you're going to agree with everything the higher courts do (c.f. the Citizens United ruling, yada yada). But you can be sure that smart people will look at the problem. Silliness like this won't stand.

I totally agree with you on letting the courts work, but you're missing an important point; who will pay to fight it through the higher courts?

We already know the court proceedings were "one-sided" so it's safe to assume no one showed up to defend themselves. For the sake of argument, let's assume the seized domains were actually selling copied goods. Whether one considers copied goods to be good or bad is irrelevant; the most we can say is there are laws forbidding the sale of copied goods. Given such laws, the "defendants" are best off hiding rather than coming forward to defend themselves in court and potentially facing further losses.

With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? Additionally, why should they bear the costs of compliance with the court orders?

It's not that the courts can't work, instead, it's whether or not making the courts work is worth the expense.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#104

Post by 1010100101 »

JonnieCache wrote: post #93
1010100101 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be that some or all of these things either already exist or are possible using existing "tools", but are simply not widely known nor in widespread use? However statements like "all the features that we need or want" are troublesome. How can we possibly agree on those? What if someone built the low-level, _boring_ "platform", and offered a _simple_ (as little code as possible), _old_, boring but workable conc…

>However statements like "all the features that we need or want" are troublesome. How can we possibly agree on those? That last one was the least important and the most flippantly stated (apart from the global mesh network.) >What if someone built the low-level, _boring_ "platform", and offered a _simple_, _old_, boring but workable conceptual vision, then let all the high-level ethusiasts address usability and featu…

Ah, that's good to know.

Now, sadly, I must ask, is someone going to try to make this proprietary and embedded, contained within hermetically sealed hardware enclosures, complete with convoluted bootloader and behavioural studies rootkit, to try to make billions from it?

To my knowledge the low-level part can happen right now using freely available code. Is it naive to think we could keep this simple and open?

Even the p2p FB piece is possible, assuming you do not need to have 1000's of friends on each of your separate social networks.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#105

Post by ComputerGuru »

To all the people suggesting we approach this and other political problems from a technological/engineering perspective: how do you think it could be pulled off?

Put aside all the technical limitations - they can (have been or will be) solved. The real question is adoption. What's a darknet without Facebook, Google, etc. worth? Who will use it? There are already countless projects implementing parts of suggested darknets, some of them very cleverly. They've been around for literally decades. None of them are perfect, but they're not so fatally flawed either.

The fact of the matter is, the internet is one big, huge de facto standard. No one will use your pet project. No one will look at it. People would far rather shoehorn or build on top of existing infrastructure (thereby being bound to the limitations of the underlying architecture and design requirements).

Just look at IPv6. It's a new technology with the full force of all the giants in the industry.... and it hasn't gone anywhere.

Actually, IPv6 would have been a good place to add the support for decentralized everything, as it is pretty much the only "authoritive" replacement for the current generation of technology. But it doesn't and it's not.

You can build it, they won't come. History proves it.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#106

Post by [deleted] »

JonnieCache wrote: post #33
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

We need to invent the following things so we can be forever truly free: 1) A secure, peer to peer DNS system with no registrars and a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 2) An encrypted version of TCP that we can drop in without anyone noticing. 3) A way of distributing keys for our encrypted transport layer without certificate authorities and again with a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 4) A secure, pe…

[deleted]

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#107

Post by brettnak »

1010100101 wrote: post #83
alttag wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but isn't this outside the court's scope of authority, as many (most?) aren't parties to the case? As I understand the role of judicial review and precedent, I don't see how a party not associated with a case can be compelled to do anything without a due process opportunity.

Do you think they will resist the order in this case? Why or why not?

I'm pretty sure they will do what their lawyers tell them the judge had the authority to do. If the judge does not have this authority, their lawyers will tell them to ignore it. If they judge does, they will tell them to obey it.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#108

Post by JonnieCache »

lkrubner wrote: post #96
angersock wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't suggest that we need a social network, but your first suggestion isn't too far from the truth. The exact thing needed is very boring, very low-level, and very unsexy, and I believe can be summarized thusly: We need a method for locating hosts on a network graph which does not have a central point of failure and which cannot be easily disabled. We then need a method for authentically routing messages back a…

Why wouldn't government simply ban the whole thing? Consider ham radio: my dad used to be really into it, and it doesn't cost much to get into it. But the government can scare away a lot of people from it, simply with the distant threat of some kind of punishment. So most people do it the legal way, at which point it becomes a big hassle - tests and certificates. And as soon as tests and certificates are needed, most…

>Running a radio show is great fun and, if you are an extrovert, it can be addicting. So why don't more people do it? Because it is illegal.

Here in the UK, we don't give a fuck. For half a century, not a fuck has been given. All those pulsing repetitive beats you've heard in your pop music for the last 30 years, that stuff that's made people untold billions of dollars? That's largely a result of us over in the UK not giving a fuck about getting in trouble for pirate radio.

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

http://www.londonpirates.co.uk/stations.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/08/pirate-radio-rav...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpS0jR6FG1o (this last link says it all)

Just sayin'.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#109

Post by throwaway81 »

danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

What we need is competition. There needs to be a viable alternative to the US government. Small policy changes or people changes or party changes will not be sufficient. Big changes will not happen without outside competition.

Someday, some country is going to recognize that supporting free culture can be a huge competitive advantage. I would like to live in that country. I'd take a pay cut to move there. I think many would found businesses there. This will pressure the US (and others) to adopt changes.

However, if I am honest with myself, I don't think reactionary changes - the only improvements that will be made - will satisfy. I think we're all waiting for someone to step up and provide a viable alternative - a place more friendly to the 21st century. I'd love to help, but I'm not certain where to start. Many software companies might thrive in less copyright and patent friendly territories. Perhaps, at some point, one will step up and launch a government competitor. But that's probably not going to happen.

Seems more likely that some countries will recognize this opportunity and there will be a slow immigration of us Internet folks to this new promised land. Anyone else have a vision for how this will end?

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#110

Post by noonespecial »

lkrubner wrote: post #96
angersock wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't suggest that we need a social network, but your first suggestion isn't too far from the truth. The exact thing needed is very boring, very low-level, and very unsexy, and I believe can be summarized thusly: We need a method for locating hosts on a network graph which does not have a central point of failure and which cannot be easily disabled. We then need a method for authentically routing messages back a…

Why wouldn't government simply ban the whole thing? Consider ham radio: my dad used to be really into it, and it doesn't cost much to get into it. But the government can scare away a lot of people from it, simply with the distant threat of some kind of punishment. So most people do it the legal way, at which point it becomes a big hassle - tests and certificates. And as soon as tests and certificates are needed, most…

The catch here is what you're talking about is the ultimate power of a government.

The system described wouldn't stop a government from censoring the internet for its own people. No technology can stop that. It would however prevent a government from becoming the government, which the Americans seem to try endlessly to do.

Once the technology was "in the wild" the US could simply "ban the whole thing"... and join North Korea in the nuthouse of closed internet while the rest of the world passed them by with a curious shrug.

Post reply on HN