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

91–100 of 228 posts

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

#91

Post by joe_the_user »

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.

There's nothing about a person's willingness to take a meat-clever to the tech industry that inherently indicates he doesn't understand the tech industry. All he's saying is "my marshals can beat your technological imperative". That might be true, especially in the short run.

And talking about these types as ignorant is reassuring. But we shouldn't be reassured. There is no a-prior reason to expect we'll win here.

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

#92

Post by cwe »

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.

Start over on Mars

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

#93

Post by JonnieCache »

1010100101 wrote: post #75
JonnieCache wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 features?

That's exactly what's going (think positive!) to happen, having a p2p facebook is just the last piece of the puzzle, the cherry on the cake.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

kstenerud wrote: post #56
dsplittgerber wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference between US political parties as far as being in favor of regulating areas of society and life is concerned.

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

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by redthrowaway »

dasil003 wrote: post #90
nupark2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you pay for it? I have a team of capable engineers, and relationships with network/wifi hardware/firmware developers. What I don't have is $2-10M to spend designing open protocols (and building the software), especially with no obvious commercial upside.

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.

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

#96

Post by lkrubner »

angersock wrote: post #62
JonnieCache wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 people lose interest.

You can set up an illegal radio station for less than $1,000. My friends and I did so in Virginia, in the USA, back in 2002. We were out in a rural area of Virginia. We had great fun playing our favorite music to whoever would get the signal. The FEC is slow to crack down on stuff like that when you are out in the middle of nowhere. The radio station lasted 2 years, and it only got shut down when we moved on to other things. I have fond memories of it.

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.

Likewise, if you created a protocol so free that government regulation was impossible, then the government could simply make it illegal. You would be "free" to use it, just like I was "free" to setup an illegal radio station, but most people won't go near it if it is illegal.

There are many things that go through our society, and which flow so freely that the government doesn't have the power to stop it, so instead it increases the penalties. Drugs would be an example. In that case, a lot of people get scared away from drugs simply because the government policies are draconian -- small amounts of drugs, found on your person, can lead to years of pain and legal trouble.

I agree with the other comment where someone says that you can not come up with a technology that will solve a policy problem. The ultimate power of the government is that, in the end, to uphold the legitimacy of the law it has the power to kill people. You can't come up with some cool technology that lets you get around the reality of a punishing government, if the government decides that some technology is too dangerous. All you can do is what the people of Syria are doing now -- organize, resist, protest, possibly even fight. There are only political solutions to political problems.

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

#97

Post by caf »

angersock wrote: post #62
JonnieCache wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

This is a pure, straightforward, fucking hard engineering problem.

Yes, in fact it's one of the famous "only two hard problems in Computer Science": locating hosts on a network graph is just a restatement of "naming things".

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

#98

Post by marshallp »

tokenadult wrote: post #79
marshallp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the tech/science community is the most able body of people in the country. I'm sure if there coordinated effort was made, it could put technologists in every office in the country.

the most able body of people in the country Most able at what? Most people who are in elected office, or who have been in elected office, have a certain repertoire of skills in getting along with other people and in keeping track of mutual obligations that helps make the political process work. Some scientists or engineers who become politicians http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter http://mcnerney.h…

Of course, if a technologist tries to get elected on his own, he won't win because he isn't a natural politician. What I'm saying, with all the talent that exists in this the sceience/engineering/programming community, if they organized, built software systems and mathematical models etc, I believe they could get "their man/woman" in every office in the country.

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

#99

Post by ComputerGuru »

angersock wrote: post #62
JonnieCache wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

If only. Unfortunately, it's not like that. With how well the "internet" is established, this is one case of NOT build it and they will come.

You can build it, but it'll never gain the authority to make everyone use it.

You'll need to be a Google or Microsoft to pull this one off.

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

#100

Post by jeroen »

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, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter ...

Looks like Ars got it right.

Post reply on HN