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

SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#41

Post by the_tubes »

I want to call my representatives but I feel they will give me a hard time and use that politician improve skill to make it seem like I don't know what I am talking about. Give me good ideas on what to say when I don't support SOPA and PIPA that they can't fight back. Ideas why I don't like it while playing devil's advocate

  +policing my web site to a point I can't manage it.
  -well your website can't be controlled and needs to be shut down

  +Small time businesses use user created content to advertise cheaply and won't
  be able to when these sites shut down or big business shuts you down with the excuse
  of violating their IP
  -Sites and small businesses will only be taken down when they are obviously
  designed to infringe on others IP

  +The security of the internet will crumble with DNS blocking from other countries
  -How?
I want wording to the point where they say, "Well, damn! I guess you're right."

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#42

Post by thebigshane »

chc wrote: post #39
thebigshane wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After re-reading the Manager's Amendment, I think that quote is no longer applicative. It looks like allowing user generated/submitted content is no longer enough under SOPA. However , it's a good thing that language was removed! So perhaps, this is an example of the benefit of the outrage over this bill. But at what point do we look back and decide that the changes are sufficient and stop the mob?

Decide the changes are sufficient? That seems to assume there's some basic core of SOPA that we agree is good. I'm not sure a lot of people really believe SOPA has a good core. There might be good intentions behind it from some parties, but it seems like if you get rid of all the harmful parts, you still aren't left with anything good. You need to establish that the bill is necessary and beneficial, not just that it…

I think most people believe that their intentions of stopping the real rogue sites (like those russian sites that sell mp3s for 10 cents each and stopping sites that peddle counterfeit, and sometimes dangerous goods) are good.

Personally, I'm not sure what to believe; I think some probably have good intentions but I don't trust the MPAA/RIAA at all and there's enough money moving around to be very skeptical of the rest. I think the parts of the bill that target the "counterfeit goods" sites are probably necessary, but as `dissident` points out, its possible that the consequences to DNS and CDNs outweigh the benefits (but Im not convinced yet :)

Regarding your second point, that is what I was getting at earlier in this thread: that as long as we rely on DNS, there will always be an opportunity for censorship. The tech-savvy need to start looking into `namecoin` and other DNS alternatives if we want to guarantee freedom.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#43

Post by tobylane »

thebigshane wrote: post #38
dissident wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) I'm sorry, but this reeks of complete ignorance. I don't think you're qualified to argue for SOPA.

Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?

Useful foreign sites? BBC accepts user comments in some areas, someone posts copyrigh material to one of them and a court order is issued before a BBC mod takes it down? If a DNS block is made then, how long will it last, and how many people would it reach anyway?

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#44

Post by thebigshane »

tobylane wrote: post #43
thebigshane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?

Useful foreign sites? BBC accepts user comments in some areas, someone posts copyrigh material to one of them and a court order is issued before a BBC mod takes it down? If a DNS block is made then, how long will it last, and how many people would it reach anyway?

Luckily, the BBC would not fall under this definition:

   the site is primarily designed or 
   operated for the purpose of, has only lim-
   ited purpose or use other than, or is mar-
   keted by its operator or another acting in 
   concert with that operator primarily for 
   use in, offering goods or services in viola-
   tion of— [...some existing laws...]

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#45

Post by [deleted] »

tobylane wrote: post #43
thebigshane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?

Useful foreign sites? BBC accepts user comments in some areas, someone posts copyrigh material to one of them and a court order is issued before a BBC mod takes it down? If a DNS block is made then, how long will it last, and how many people would it reach anyway?

[deleted]

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#46

Post by sukuriant »

thebigshane wrote: post #44
tobylane wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Useful foreign sites? BBC accepts user comments in some areas, someone posts copyrigh material to one of them and a court order is issued before a BBC mod takes it down? If a DNS block is made then, how long will it last, and how many people would it reach anyway?

Luckily, the BBC would not fall under this definition: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only lim- ited purpose or use other than, or is mar- keted by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in viola- tion of— [...some existing laws...]

Imagine if Dropbox were a non-US company. That section you just argued could be easily misused to block that site. After all, you can share your files on as many computers as you want. Clearly it will all be music and movies. People that want Dropbox taken down only need one or ten examples. In a popular enough website, it would be easy to find some example people that have broken the ToS and uploaded copyrighted conent onto it and shared it with their friends. They could even plant those people!

Oh, but they broke the ToS, that means they're not following what the web site's purpose is? Well, now maligned websites just need to have a ToS that says "don't do bad stuff", and they're fine!

See where I'm going with this?

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#47

Post by thebigshane »

sukuriant wrote: post #46
thebigshane wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, the BBC would not fall under this definition: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only lim- ited purpose or use other than, or is mar- keted by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in viola- tion of— [...some existing laws...]

Imagine if Dropbox were a non-US company. That section you just argued could be easily misused to block that site. After all, you can share your files on as many computers as you want. Clearly it will all be music and movies. People that want Dropbox taken down only need one or ten examples. In a popular enough website, it would be easy to find some example people that have broken the ToS and uploaded copyrighted con…

I realize that laws can be twisted by clever lawyers but I still think its quite a stretch to claim that a Dropbox-like site could be said to have its primary purpose be infringing copyrights.

For one thing, those files aren't publicly available by default. If they are publicly available, then the Dropbox team is probably already monitoring those files. If they are not monitoring those files then (this part is controversial...) maybe they should be investigated for copyright infringement, as long as they maintain due process.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#48

Post by dissident »

thebigshane wrote: post #37
dissident wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't be more wrong, sorry. The ICE seizures are perfectly fine because they target the delegation chain directly -- they are actually seizing the domain from a registrar or TLD authority with control over it within the chain. They are not a DNS blacklist and it does not interfere with caching servers. SOPA attempts to target names which are not within U.S. jurisdiction by asking caching servers maintained by ISPs…

I didn't realize the process used by ICE was different than what SOPA suggests, but that makes sense now that you've explained it. I don't understand how DNSBL is different though for the end user. I realize DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see how the effects are different. For a DNS server that uses a DNSBL, does it regard a blacklisted domain name through DNSBL differently than one that…

> I realize DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see how the effects are different. For a DNS server

Bam, stop right there. DNS servers do not use DNSBL. There's your answer.

DNSBL is used in circumstances like this: You're connecting to an IRC server. It does some tests to make sure you're not spoofing your host, like using reverse DNS (PTR records). IRC servers will also try to prevent spammers and flooders by denying access to hosts that are in a DNSBL -- likely open proxies.

Here's some IRC software which does specifically that: http://www.blitzed.org/proxy/

I am running some mail servers which are having trouble delivering mail to gmail right now. gmail is returning back this error:

    The IP you're using to send mail is not authorized to
    send email directly to our servers. Please use the SMTP relay your
    service provider instead.
Turns out, it's because the IPs I've been allocated are in Spamhaus, which is an implementation of DNSBL that specifically targets spammers.

Again, this is an action by the server software itself. It is not a mandate, and is not actually a restriction on DNS. It is nothing like blacklisting cache servers. The name has confused you.

> Regarding CDNs, for a user initiating request for a non-blacklisted site, why would the CDN be now less efficient in its response?

If you're trying to access Google, their nameservers may give your ISP's caching servers a different resolution if you're in California rather than in the UK, usually to resolve to closer servers. This is only effective because nameservers can target cache servers which are specific to geographic areas, and is a great side-effect of the current structure of the naming system and of the Internet.

By forcing people away from domestic nameservers, this targeted effect fails. A foreign cache server will return inefficient resolutions to queries compared to a domestic one operated by an ISP.

Aside from being terrible for the end user, it also begins to put stress and congest different areas of the global Internet unexpectedly. Though arrangements can be made to compensate, it's pretty annoying and will never be as efficient as before.

> My point is that if DNS and CDNs become drastically inefficient by having to ignore certain names, then it sounds like it could have been designed better to handle such cases.

The only real "design flaw" in DNS is the inflated trust in cache servers. DNSSEC tries to resolve this by attaching a chain of authentication alongside the delegation chain which can be verified. SOPA breaks DNSSEC entirely because it cannot return these authenticated messages (it is resolving incorrectly or lying about the delegation chain).

DNS was not designed to be censored in the way proposed by SOPA; it is not a design flaw in SOPA, it's a flaw in the legislation.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#49

Post by dissident »

thebigshane wrote: post #38
dissident wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) I'm sorry, but this reeks of complete ignorance. I don't think you're qualified to argue for SOPA.

Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?

You're justifying it as not having too much of a "splash" because it targets foreign websites which you claim are primarily for copyright infringement. That's just not true at all. Most foreign websites are perfectly legitimate.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#50

Post by thebigshane »

dissident wrote: post #48
thebigshane wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize the process used by ICE was different than what SOPA suggests, but that makes sense now that you've explained it. I don't understand how DNSBL is different though for the end user. I realize DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see how the effects are different. For a DNS server that uses a DNSBL, does it regard a blacklisted domain name through DNSBL differently than one that…

> I realize DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see how the effects are different. For a DNS server Bam, stop right there. DNS servers do not use DNSBL. There's your answer. DNSBL is used in circumstances like this: You're connecting to an IRC server. It does some tests to make sure you're not spoofing your host, like using reverse DNS (PTR records). IRC servers will also try to prevent spamm…

This is a fantastic response and I'm glad you took the time to write it. I'm sorry I misinterpreted DNSBL, I guess I read "either as a zone file that can be used by DNS server software" and assumed they meant the main DNS servers really do use them.

Final question for you: Do you believe that if SOPA passes, it would really have drastic effects to the internet functionally? So, besides censorship and liability, do you think there would be a noticeable difference for tech-savvy internet users and website operators in regards to things you mentioned above (or perhaps haven't mentioned yet)?

Post reply on HN