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

DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 327 posts

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#281

Post by pelliphant »

aww_dang wrote: post #278
pelliphant wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you defending those trumpists that stormed the capitol? Sure, we could argue that "terrorist" is the wrong word to use here, but if we used another word, such as "criminals", I would guess that you would still make pretty much the same argument. And talking about "toxic divisiveness" while defending people trying to overthrow an election? Are you even listening to yourself?

Disagreeing with the excesses of partisan hyperbole is not the same as defending Trump, his policies or the actions of his supporters. I hope you can appreciate the distinction. I notice many comments will start with, "Although I dislike Trump..." The fact that comments need to begin with such a disclaimer is illustrative of the atmosphere we find ourselves in. A comment should stand on its own. Disclaimers shouldn't…

I appreciate your answer, but I still consider it "defending".

Yes, the atmosphere we find ourselves in is horrible. But I would argue that the "post-truth" strategy used by trump & friends is the main reason for this.

When it is so common to be intelectually dishonest, those disclaimers are needed, and with how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet, I think that those disclaimers are something positive, people really should add "/s" when being sarcastic as an example.

How would you suggest one should handle dishonest liars on the internet? Personally I think that one should call them out on their lies, but everytime that is done, someone, (in this case, you), come along and call it "partisan hyperbole"...

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#282

Post by krageon »

afiori wrote: post #264
vaduz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tuvalu uses that domain as a significant source of income (Tuvalu is really really small) it is quite likely those domains are legally bought Whilst true, it depends on a circular argument that the domain name registrant has a significant business presence in Tuvalu by virtue of paying for the domain, thus being entitled to a regional registration in the country in the first place (you could substitute Tuvalu by To…

I always thought that those rules were at the discretion of the domain administrators. Are they actually externally imposed from ICANN or something else? I know that my country (at least nominally) requires that its TDL is only used by citizens, residents or bussiness with "significant presence"; but that should be a choice each country makes.

It is not the case for most country-specific TLD's that you need to have a significant presence in those countries to get such a TLD. If anything, that is the exception.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#283

Post by vaduz »

afiori wrote: post #264
vaduz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tuvalu uses that domain as a significant source of income (Tuvalu is really really small) it is quite likely those domains are legally bought Whilst true, it depends on a circular argument that the domain name registrant has a significant business presence in Tuvalu by virtue of paying for the domain, thus being entitled to a regional registration in the country in the first place (you could substitute Tuvalu by To…

I always thought that those rules were at the discretion of the domain administrators. Are they actually externally imposed from ICANN or something else? I know that my country (at least nominally) requires that its TDL is only used by citizens, residents or bussiness with "significant presence"; but that should be a choice each country makes.

That's current view on things, which has shifted quite a bit over the decades.

Pre-ICANN, back in in 1994 when Postel wrote RFC 1591 [0], there were only 5 domains used for global use (.com, .net, .org, .edu, .int), two special US-only domains (.gov, .mil) and the rest were ccTLDs. InterNic has been the primary registry these days, and it also operated the gTLDs of .com, .net, .edu directly, so it had commercial interest for the country-code delegations to stay local - this perceived conflict was one of the reasons why ICANN was eventually formed to take over the general oversight, and the first topic it had to tackle - before even being properly funded! - was the emergence of some countries that did sell their ccTLDs to other parties, especially as WIPO had some words to say in 'concern' over the bidding war around .tv and insisted that ccTLDs that operate as "open" should apply the same global rules as gTLDs [1] and some purchasers in the simlar sales proved "not to have local community support" and/or "not operated [ccTLD] in public interest" [2]

Even after the ICANN was formed, in the transition period the some of the MOU documents ccTLD registrar sent to ICANN used to contain a phrase which was clearly copied from an earlier era (phrase bears a little differences in spelling, but always using something like "meet the needs of the Local Internet Community"):

   [ccTLD manager] supports the concept of industry self regulation in the internet and therefore is also supportive of ICANN as the organization that performs the IANA function and consequently assures that this concept can work for benefit of all Internet stakeholders. At the same time to preserve this concept we believe that the policy and structure of the [ccTLD], *as any ccTLD, should be operated at a local level, to meet the needs of the Local Internet Community* within the framework of the relevant local laws.
Check out e.g. UK exchange of letters from 2006 [3] for an example.

That being said - all of the above is only a bit of historical interest, as by now it is accepted that it is ok to operate ccTLD which accepts registrations from anywhere should your country wish it, as long as global rules are adhered to (to prevent stuff like "cocacola.cx") and there has been some clarification on the policies to make custom gTLDs a possibility.

[0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591

[1] https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process1/report/finalr...

[2] https://archive.icann.org/en/cctlds/gac-statements-concernin...

[3] https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/uk/nominet-...

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#284

Post by krageon »

hluska wrote: post #96
kfogel wrote: post #91

There might be a selective enforcement issue here? If it turns out that lots of the IP address space is doled out based on semi-fraudulent claims like this (assuming that Guilmette's claim is correct that DDos-Guard doesn't really have a physical Latin American presence), but the only cases where the corresponding NIC takes action is when someone complains for content-motivated reasons, then... that's biased selectiv…

I wonder if this is more of a case where a NIC will only take action if someone is motivated enough to do this level of research. So maybe less selective enforcement and more selective researcher attention?

In companies such as these there is an absolute mountain of abuse to dig through, so as a researcher it is pretty normal to have all sorts of different reasons to devote more or less attention to a subject. Very routine things will see less scrutiny, whereas very objectionable things (think child porn, organisations responsible for bombings, ethnofascist rings, etc) will see a little more.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, it's more or less inevitable so the focus should be to have the "very objectionable things" actually confined to a set that is sort of agreed upon.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#285

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aegis4244 wrote: post #231
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is easily reconciled if you distinguish between the public officials doing the selective enforcing, and private citizens selectively deciding who to do research on. So you're fine with private employers who do criminal background checks on black applicants but not white applicants? Or a third party entity that does background checks on all black people (and only black people) and then submits the results to em…

Being black is a protected class. Being an asshole is not.

> Being black is a protected class. Being an asshole is not.

So you're fine with employers doing criminal background checks against Democrats but not Republicans? Or just investigating which one you are and then making the hiring decision directly based on it?

We're talking about the principle, not the law. The law can be changed. What constitutes a "protected class" isn't in the constitution.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#286

Post by krageon »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #280
BrianOnHN wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't like what they are saying This is incorrect. Not tolerating intolerance is objective. Sad so many people can't wrap their head around this incredibly simple paradox.

Tolerance is a willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. [1] If you don't tolerate "intolerance", you are intolerant, it's as simple as that. And if you make yourself a clause to exclude some beliefs from acceptance and still deem yourself tolerant, you are a hypocrite. [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/to…

Tolerance isn't a binary state, but a sliding scale.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#287

Post by AnthonyMouse »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #268
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's three different things. The First Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the government. Free speech is the principle that suppressing allegedly false information is more dangerous than not suppressing it because if the information is actually false you can refute it but if the information is actually true then it allows powerful actors to suppress atrocities and lie with impunity. Censorship is the s…

That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though. Is it censorship if The NY Times doesn’t publish your letter to the editor? Is it censorship if I kick you out of my party when you get drunk and start yelling racist slurs? You could take a maximalist view and say yes, those are censorship, but I doubt you would find many people that would say you shouldn’t do those things.

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of speech. If the NY Times doesn't publish your letter to the editor but you can post it on Facebook and have a reasonably proportionate number of people able to read it in practice, it's not being effectively suppressed. If neither they nor anyone else with a similar reach will carry it, that's censorship.

It has nothing to do with who does it and everything to do with whether the idea is being suppressed in practice.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#288

Post by aww_dang »

pelliphant wrote: post #281
aww_dang wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreeing with the excesses of partisan hyperbole is not the same as defending Trump, his policies or the actions of his supporters. I hope you can appreciate the distinction. I notice many comments will start with, "Although I dislike Trump..." The fact that comments need to begin with such a disclaimer is illustrative of the atmosphere we find ourselves in. A comment should stand on its own. Disclaimers shouldn't…

I appreciate your answer, but I still consider it "defending". Yes, the atmosphere we find ourselves in is horrible. But I would argue that the "post-truth" strategy used by trump & friends is the main reason for this. When it is so common to be intelectually dishonest, those disclaimers are needed, and with how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet, I think that those disclaimers are something positive,…

By example, you'll note that I haven't called the comparison to ISIS dishonest. I could go in that direction, but instead I'd call it inaccurate. I've no way of reading the mind of the poster, so instead of burdening them with my presumptions of dishonesty, I try (and sometimes fail) to engage with good faith.

From this point it isn't hard to understand how high emotions seem to be running. It isn't uncommon for otherwise rational people to project irrational ideas onto a discussion. This is especially common when emotions are running high. The tribal instinct seems to be one of our most base emotions.

The distinction is that I don't presume malice. Instead, as trite as it may sound, I try to work from a place of compassion.

Simply blaming the other side (RE: Trump & Friends) appears to be part of the problem here. The anti-Trump partisans appear just as emotionally irrational in my view.

Perhaps I am privileged in that I don't identify with either side, or approve of their policies. I will say that it is hard not to have sympathy when I see someone irrationally attacked.

The mob mentality is palatable. I think it was George Carlin who made a famous observation about the intelligence of the 'average' person, then concluded that half of the people are somewhere below that.

Re: DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

#290

Post by account42 »

krageon wrote: post #286
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolerance is a willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. [1] If you don't tolerate "intolerance", you are intolerant, it's as simple as that. And if you make yourself a clause to exclude some beliefs from acceptance and still deem yourself tolerant, you are a hypocrite. [1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/to…

Tolerance isn't a binary state, but a sliding scale.

Which is exactly what makes the "Paradox of Tolerance" hypocritical - you are more or less arbitrarily deciding who you can be intolerant towards.
Post reply on HN