US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by zeteo » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:24 AM UTC

jeroen wrote: post #100

zeteo wrote: post #70

It's very unlikely that this article is correct. Here is the legal ruling: http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se... This is a temporary restraining order. Chanel is posting a bond for any damages to the defendants, should the trial prove them innocent. Regarding de-indexing, there is only one paragraph (10) which says the domains "shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed", without specify…

The november 14 order mentioned in the article (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-0... ) contains the following text (on page 11): (10) The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search result pages of all Internet search engines including, but not limited to, Google, Bing and Yahoo, and all social media websites including, but not limited to…

Umm the date on my link is November 14th. It's the same thing, except I'm linking to the original PDF and you're linking to the Scribd version.

Have you read the details in the post you're replying to? It's exactly about the paragraph (10) that you're quoting.

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

#132

Post by zeteo » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:29 AM UTC

jeroen wrote: post #102

zeteo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's wrong, or at least not for the reason you've mentioned.

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

#133

Post by calloc » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:33 AM UTC

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #16

I'm curious, how are there not "offshore" domains yet, much in the same fashion there of offshore shell corporations for tax havens? Somebody tether me a server farm in the middle of the Atlantic, and tap on into the cables down below or something. Heck, got your water cooled farm right there. All jesting aside though, does anyone think domains name registration is going to start soaring in other countries because of…

Because ICANN is still governed by US rules, and while it would probably cause a LOT of damage they could seize any domain they wanted since they own the root DNS servers.

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

#134

Post by Zarathust » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:35 AM UTC

I posted a few sites on my facebook page, I'm waiting for the US to take it down

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

#135

Post by VladRussian » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:41 AM UTC

dpatru wrote: post #101

yolesaber wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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., n…

>we need leaders

it is hardly possible to describe the root cause of the problem in less words than that.

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

#136

Post by viraptor » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:44 AM UTC

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…

I was thinking about 1) and it seems like a really cool idea. If you could also query the sites trusted by some person, that would be like a HN with domains only to some extent (and if you can have any domain you want, you'd probably use one per site, rather than making a hierarchy again). Realistically I probably need only 20 or so domains on a typical day anyways, so that would only require trusting 5 or so other developers.

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

#137

Post by jcr » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:59 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #129

jcr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The costs of a "protracted legal battle" are quite small when viewed from the perspective of Google, Facebook or Twitter. There's an argument there about small entities (which is why SLAPP statutes exist), but not here. I mean, check revenue numbers on Chanel (Chanel!) vs. any of those giants. I don't think they're worried about being unfairly punished with legal fees.

In practice, you're right, but in theory, the law is supposed to be "fair" rather than based on your net-worth.

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

#138

Post by fl3tch » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 1:02 AM UTC

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. :-)

Twitter didn't buy Moxie Marlinspike. They bought one of his companies, which makes a variety of encrypted solutions for mobile phones. The Convergence project (which is an alternative to certificate authorities) remains independent of Whisper Systems.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 1:04 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #58

Sigh, don't panic, the system will work, just legislative time is not internet time. As far as I can tell by reading the order [1] the order is temporary, and as its from a district judge [2] really only holds for Nevada at the moment. If it gets to the appeals process and the circuit court upholds it, it will apply more broadly, up to the supreme court where it will apply to the US as a whole. However what that mean…

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by DanielBMarkham » Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 1:11 AM UTC

Jabbles wrote: post #121

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #18

So if I decide to sell my wife's (imaginary) 3 tons of Chanel goods, and open a site called chanel-goods-for-cheap, odds are my site gets lifted and I become a part of this action no matter whether I am selling counterfeit goods or not, right? I agree with the attorney. Why get upset about SOPA? They can screw you over just the same way today without all the extra laws. This will eventually reach the point, if left u…

Please read the article and stop spreading false information. It doesn't help. Obviously the court's decision sets an awful precedent. But the third paragraph clearly states that Chanel checked that the sites were actually selling counterfeit goods. So your analogy doesn't work.

As I understood the article, there was an open order that Chanel simply stuffed websites into. I'm not sure exactly what the qualifications of a "anti-counterfeiting specialist" are, but it certainly doesn't involve judicial review. From the article:

The case has been a remarkable one. Concerned about counterfeiting, Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common. When Chanel finds more names, it simply uses the same case and files new requests for more seizures. (A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)

How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.

I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued. Chanel pays an expert who puts together a list and they are automatically banned. Each site can then, and only then, try to get some review. Chanel picks and chooses who to take sites away from, then the site owners -- if they have the resources -- can try to get things sorted out. Seems pretty straightforward to me (if completely whacked) Yes, I extrapolate that situation into the future, but that's the purpose of commentary: to use analogy and extrapolation to show facets of the article that aren't immediately apparent to the reader. I never said that brands own the internet now. I simply said that if things keep going this way, this is where we are going to end up.