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

111–120 of 228 posts

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

#111

Post by marshray »

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…

I used to have an Amateur Radio license. I didn't mind the tests, I enjoyed learning the theory, and I even learned Morse code. I went to hamfests, bought a radio, then suddenly realized "I have nothing I wish to say to these people". It was almost entirely old men telling each other the details of their medical conditions.

I was glad when it lapsed. The penalties for emitting RF that falls outside of the rules somehow tended to be significantly higher if you actually had a some kind of a license than if you had none.

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

#112

Post by marshray »

JonnieCache wrote: post #67
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…

Yeah, I edited my list to include a CA-free encrypted replacement for TCP, just before I saw your comment. To all the super-geniuses reading this: burn your socialmobilelocal startup to the ground tomorrow and do this instead. Start by watching this Blackhat talk I linked elsewhere in the thread, the guy has the right kind of ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

Last I heard, Mr "future of authenticity" was just acquired by Twitter. :-)

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

marshray wrote: post #112
JonnieCache wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I edited my list to include a CA-free encrypted replacement for TCP, just before I saw your comment. To all the super-geniuses reading this: burn your socialmobilelocal startup to the ground tomorrow and do this instead. Start by watching this Blackhat talk I linked elsewhere in the thread, the guy has the right kind of ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

Last I heard, Mr "future of authenticity" was just acquired by Twitter. :-)

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by marshray »

jcr wrote: post #103
ajross wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 irrelevan…

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?

1. Because they pull down boatloads of money doing business on the internet and it's the right thing to do for them to help defend it.

2. Because they depend on the stable operation of the Internet for their business, in particular: A. the stability of names and URLs, and B. a censorship-free legal envrionment where they don't have to process regular expressions or O(M*N) algorithms serving every page.

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

#115

Post by lhnn »

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…

http://tcpcrypt.org/

Passive encryption... not the best, it prevents lazy MITM.

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

#116

Post by libraryatnight »

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…

It's funny you mention the illegal radio. All of this end of the internet reading I've been doing had me wondering the other night, if things get really bad, will those savvy enough build their own underground network? Pirate Internet could breed some interesting communities.

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

#117

Post by JonnieCache »

marshray wrote: post #112
JonnieCache wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I edited my list to include a CA-free encrypted replacement for TCP, just before I saw your comment. To all the super-geniuses reading this: burn your socialmobilelocal startup to the ground tomorrow and do this instead. Start by watching this Blackhat talk I linked elsewhere in the thread, the guy has the right kind of ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

Last I heard, Mr "future of authenticity" was just acquired by Twitter. :-)

As I understand it, typing in all-caps or just bashing your face into the keyboard is considered poor form around here, so instead I'll just calmly state that this information displeases me immensely, and evokes a not inconsiderably bitter sense of irony.

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

#118

Post by sdkmvx »

marshray wrote: post #69
kstenerud wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why the talk of a liberal state? America is far more conservative overall than, for example, most Western European countries.

People who still believe in politics in the US tend to attach themselves to "liberal" or "conservative" and use the other one as a pejorative. Neither term has a very well defined meaning, other than for a few select issues like, say, gay marriage.

> Neither term has a very well defined meaning, other than for a few select issues like, say, gay marriage.

Not really. I'm conservative in that I don't think that being radical will ever help your cause (see the French Revolution). I'm liberal in that I think people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their lives (i.e., classical liberalism. It follows that I don't support excessive government interference, regulation, or social programs, so I wouldn't go on about being liberal, as that's what the U.S. Democrats have used to describe their platform (which isn't liberal in the traditional sense).

For the record, the government doesn't need to regulate marriage whatsoever. Obviously they want to know for tax purposes, but they shouldn't care about the genders of the people involved. Churches can say whatever they want about marriage, I don't really care, and I don't think gay people do either.

So which label do you want to attach to me?

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

redthrowaway wrote: post #95
dasil003 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be done either non-profit-wise or even with significant upside, it's just your chances of VC-money and selling to a major corporation for fuck-you money are diminished relative to TechCrunch friendly buzzword related startups.

Non-profit might be the best way to go, here. I'm sure you can wrangle up enough in donations and FOSS contributions to make it work. The idea of an Internet free from political and legal malfeasance is one whose time has come, and enough people are realizing that fact that there should be sufficient collective energy to move a well-designed system forward.

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by libraryatnight »

redthrowaway wrote: post #95
dasil003 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be done either non-profit-wise or even with significant upside, it's just your chances of VC-money and selling to a major corporation for fuck-you money are diminished relative to TechCrunch friendly buzzword related startups.

Non-profit might be the best way to go, here. I'm sure you can wrangle up enough in donations and FOSS contributions to make it work. The idea of an Internet free from political and legal malfeasance is one whose time has come, and enough people are realizing that fact that there should be sufficient collective energy to move a well-designed system forward.

This is what I was going to say. If Diaspora rallied over $200k being billed as an open source facebook alternative, imagine the excitement something like this would garner.
Post reply on HN