Another DNS Operator Opposes SOPA DYN CEO Joins Long List of Those Opposing Bill Roughly about a year ago, OpenDNS CEO David Ulevitch didn't mince words when criticizing COICA, just one of a series of laws being pushed by the entertainment industry to give Uncle Sam the authority to seize and shut down domains deemed centered around copyright infringement. Roughly a year later he came out strongly against SOPA and Protect IP, two laws that replaced COICA -- but are just as bad. In all cases, Ulevitch argued that the laws fundamentally would break the Internet, take legitimate businesses offline, and essentially create "the Great Firewall of the United States." This week Techdirt directs our attention to opposition to SOPA originating from another DNS operator, Dyn. In a post over at the Dyn website, company CEO Jeremy Hitchcock explains why his company, like OpenDNS, Google and others, is stringently anti-SOPA: Essentially, this bill would give the government more control into shutting down websites they don’t agree with in general. Anti-American sentiment promoted on Twitter, Tumblr or another one of our clients that promotes free discourse? Both the sites themselves and Dyn as their DNS provider could be penalized for simply providing a conduit in which someone can access or promote views the government doesn’t agree with — regardless of whether the source is based in the U.S. or not. The Great Firewall of America? Yep, kinda feels like that. SOPA is a shot across the bow of free speech and as one of the largest Internet IaaS companies in the world, we cannot endorse it in any way, shape or form. As Techdirt notes, criticism from people who truly know networks and filters comes as the entertainment industry's lead lobbying groups, the MPAA and RIAA, try to argue that opposition to COPA is the mindless rantings of hippies and other ne'er do wells.
|
  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit |  Typical over-reaction to these laws
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
|  | | | Re: Tpical over-reaction to these laws Yes, and if there was any sort of solid oversight or evidence required than we could agree. Unfortunately there is not, which means they pretty much can do what they want up to and including shutting down sites that they disagree with.
Copyright infringmenent already has criminal laws that apply - use those. | |
| |  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| You say that now until one day you wake hop online and start surfing your normal sites, and low and behold your sites are gone just because. Come on do people really think that there is going to be any oversight on this.The main problem this is going to create is legitimate websites are going to be shut down very quickly and the poor owners are going to spend X amount of time trying to get there website back up,no thank you they can shove this up there ass. | |
| | | | | Re: Tpical over-reaction to these laws Why would anybody ever support laws that criminalize our society even more, while restricting our freedoms at the same time?
Only a retarded idiot would support ProtectIP or SOPA. | |
| | | | | | Re: Tpical over-reaction to these laws You got that right about him in the latter part of your post. But his signature is hilarious | |
| | | |  whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:8 | said by DataRiker:Why would anybody ever support laws that criminalize our society even more, while restricting our freedoms at the same time? Only a retarded idiot would support ProtectIP or SOPA. Not quite as stupid as you may think. Just greedy. The answer is because, just like with other laws that screw up America and soak the 99% - is because the politicians are being paid large sums of money by the corporations supporting this worthless (actually terrible) piece of legislation (which was probably written by the telecom & entertainment industry). Just follow the money. Here is a link to how much the bill's sponsors have been bribed for:
»Re: SOPA, maybe I should start voting.... | |
| | | | | | | Re: Tpical over-reaction to these laws said by whizkid3:said by DataRiker:Why would anybody ever support laws that criminalize our society even more, while restricting our freedoms at the same time? Only a retarded idiot would support ProtectIP or SOPA. Not quite as stupid as you may think. Just greedy. The answer is because, just like with other laws that screw up America and soak the 99% - is because the politicians are being paid large sums of money by the corporations supporting this worthless (actually terrible) piece of legislation (which was probably written by the telecom & entertainment industry). Just follow the money. Here is a link to how much the bill's sponsors have been bribed for: » Re: SOPA, maybe I should start voting.... WOW, very good, what i knew all along!. vote out the Democrats is a start, too. and severely limit campaign contributions. just the thought of laws being bought by the highest bidder is unconscionable!!. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Charter
| no, on the surface, they are not about allowing the government the power to sqash unpopular views, but just because that is not what they are written for does not mean that it will not get used that way. Also, with the private right of action that is written into both bills, it will not be the government, it will be private corporations squashing blogs they dont like, sites they dont like, and so on. the DMCA is already abused for things like this(see this weeks DMCA takedown notice to a blogger who outed carrier IQs software, and what it can do). These laws are about giving the power of censorship to the discreet few that have lots of money, mainly large corporations like the MPAA and RIAA. It will get abused, you can count on it, and I am not letting it pass. I oppose it, I have written to my congress members, emails them, and called them to voice my displeasure of their support of this bill. As it has been said, there is NO oversight to the takedowns, they can be done on a whim if someone does not like your content, they simply pull the plug with no due process(much like the ICE/DHS domain name seizures of In our Sites), and then the website owner needs to spend the money to get the ruling overturned. This is very bias in the corporations and governments favor, and is a step towards the great firewall of america. It will also break DNS, and more likely create a darkweb DNS system that does not use public DNS servers at all. Hell, im considering getting a cheap box to be a DNS server for me, so I dont have to rely on anyone else, and my entries cannot be fucked with. | |
| | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Typical over-reaction to these laws said by Chubbysumo:no, on the surface, they are not about allowing the government the power to sqash unpopular views, but just because that is not what they are written for does not mean that it will not get used that way. It will get abused, you can count on it, and I am not letting it pass. I oppose it, I have written to my congress members, emails them, and called them to voice my displeasure of their support of this bill.
quote:
showing your free speech rights are still intact.
As it has been said, there is NO oversight to the takedowns, they can be done on a whim if someone does not like your content, they simply pull the plug with no due process quote:
The takedowns had to be authorized by a court. So there is due process.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Romney2012:said by Chubbysumo:no, on the surface, they are not about allowing the government the power to sqash unpopular views, but just because that is not what they are written for does not mean that it will not get used that way. It will get abused, you can count on it, and I am not letting it pass. I oppose it, I have written to my congress members, emails them, and called them to voice my displeasure of their support of this bill.
quote:
showing your free speech rights are still intact.
As it has been said, there is NO oversight to the takedowns, they can be done on a whim if someone does not like your content, they simply pull the plug with no due process quote:
The takedowns had to be authorized by a court. So there is due process.
nope, actually, the private right of action takedowns DO NOT need to be authorized by a court. Read the 400+ page monster, there is no such oversight in either SOPA or PIP, they are specifically written by the MPAA and RIAA to be that way, so that corporations can simply take down sites with NO due process. Even the current ICE/DHS domain seizures have no due process, look at all the sites that went down that were not even US sites, but ended up on the list. Biggest example is Rojadirecta, which was ruled legal in spain, and since it was a .com address, and ended up on someones shitlist, the US government seized the domain without ever informing the sites registered owner, in fact, NONE of the sites that were taken last year, and now this year were given due process to fight the seizure, and now those that were legit and want their name back have to pick up an expensive tab to start the process. Also, PIP eliminates ISP safe harbors, and erodes your rights. Like I said, read them, they are listed online, with all the changes, and some of the things they allow PRIVATE companies to do is quite scary.
For example: PIP allows a private company to allege(just say they suspect, with no actual proof, or court to oversee it) that you are committing copyright infringement, and they can have your sites domain name taken down. That is a private company, NOT a government entity. That is not right, nor should it seem right.
As laws are written now, if a company feels that you are infringing on their rights, they can follow proper(and already in place) legal channels to sue you civil court, and then with that due process met, they can ask you have your site taken down. If there were proper due process in either of these bills, then I would not care, but neither was written with due process in mind, they were written by corporations who only care to control the populace in what, where, and when they can buy and sell stuff.
Imagine if Apples Itunes store got taken down because the RIAA decided to say it was somehow infringing on their rights? | |
|
| | | You honestly don't think Wikileaks won't be immediately targeted? And once the blocking mechanism is in place how can the government justify not blocking Islamist, White Power, obscene, slanderous, etc. etc. sites. In any case copyright is 100% a violation of free speech. | |
| |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| I think the government's proven more than a few times that giving it limited power leads to future extension/growth of such down the road. True, SOPA right now is about copyright infringement, but it lays the blueprints out for a means of government control over the internet. It's a slippery slope thing, and one that's been slipped down a few times in the past.
Long story short, it is over-reaction, but it's not without justification. | |
| | | | You support more government and more laws but "That gov't is best which governs least" ??????????????? | |
| | |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Typical over-reaction to these laws said by Ted Sheckler:You support more government and more laws but "That gov't is best which governs least" ???????????????
flip flop flip flop hahahahaha | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Typical over-reaction to these laws said by FBGuy:said by Ted Sheckler:You support more government and more laws but "That gov't is best which governs least" ???????????????
flip flop flip flop hahahahaha The quote doesn't say "That gov't is best which governs not at all". Which is what many here want. And I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs. I am all for what is practical and if we can punish copyright infringers and those who aid them, I'm all for it. | |
| | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: Typical over-reaction to these laws Problem is, the law's kind of vaguely written as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This may interrupt some finance services to some sites, but it opens up any site capable of making links (ie. all of them) to DMCA and/or legal problems as well. It's probably easy to tie a site like Pirate Bay to copyright infringement, but that's a damn big net if it can also snag Google, Twitter, and Facebook as well.
These laws feel a bit like swatting a fly with shotgun scatter. You may hit the fly, but you also wreck a lot of other things too. Worse yet, we're giving the shotgun to people with a track record of f***ing up with the cap gun they have now. | |
| | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | The ends do not justify the means though. | |
| | | | |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | said by Romney2012:And I'm not dogmatic in my beliefs.  . . . . .....  | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Ted Sheckler:You support more government and more laws but "That gov't is best which governs least" ???????????????
Ahahahaha. I didn't notice that.
This seriously made my day. Thank you. | |
|
| talos4
join:2002-01-30
Manassas, VA | This must be a troll - the OP's tag line certainly does not reflect the stance taken in the post.
I won't debate the intentions or goals of this legislation. The fundamental fact is from a technical perspective, limited DNS blocking simply will not be effective at reaching the desired goal. The major technical industry opponents primarily base their opposition on that technical fact. The major content industry proponents mostly understand that fact as well but see this legislation as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal.
Lets take the ineffective DNS blocking as required in this legislation to it's logical conclusion. From a technical perspective, it's very easy to NXDOMAIN a host record or entire domain. So on day one, US ISPs are told to block infringing.com, and they do so. On day two, the same site is available at infringing.ru. About 15 days later, roughly 325 blocks have been made for infringing.[TLD] (one for each Country Code TLD).
At this point, the site owner can simply choose another domain name, and the whole cycle starts over. Or maybe the site owner starts using tinyurl. Within a couple weeks, ISPs would get a block order for tinyurl.com, effectively shutting down that service.
There are a couple ways to go from here, so I'll list the two most logical and likely: The customer decides to switch to an offshore "clean" DNS service - one not under US jurisdiction. Or, the customer decides to run their own DNS caching to get around their ISP's blocks. Both are easy to do, and anyone can do either. Under this legislation, the next block request from the content industry would require ISPs to block at the providers peering points using DPI or a proxy. That data would be logged, and the customer would receive a notice of infringement.
If DPI and proxy is struck down (unlikely based on how accommodating our elected representatives have been to the content industry thus far but lets say it is), network providers only remaining solution would be to block anything leaving their network at their peering routers with destination port 53 which was sourced from customer address space. At this point, the customer could only send a DNS query to a DNS server on their provider's network.
And at this point, you have the Great Firewall of America. All performed under the legislation as currently written.
I won't go into all of the obvious additional methods to defeat the above blocking (VPN, using IP addresses/browser plugins, hosts file, etc., etc., etc.), the negative impacts to the global DNS (slow response time due to parsing against a list of millions of blocked domains, etc.), or DNSSEC. The point is from a technical perspective, DNS blocking as legislated MUST result in FULL PORT 53 BLOCKING in order to be effective.
The net logical result of this legislation as written, and considering the tactics used by the content industry so far, is full port 53 blocking and the criminalization of any US internet user who does not exclusively use their service provider's caching DNS service.
So no, it's not about losing revenue. IMHO it's about the mandated technical solution not being effective. It's about the net result being a full block of port 53 which will completely fragment the internet. And it's about a content industry purchasing this legislation through our corrupt elected officials who choose to ignore the technical industry. | |
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | killing P2P Piracy is just a bullshit marketing term woven by the government to sell it to the Sheep voters.
the Reality is that the government wants the power to close off access to any site they want that they do not agree with. Senator that is corrupt? website spewing the truth? a few calls and that site is now gone unless you know the IP address.
Honestly ICANN should just tell the government to go fsck itself if SOPA passes and relocate itself and the root servers to say Canada. Government no longer has the keys to the internet, it may have invented it but its now a private industry. run by companies far more powerful than the feds themselves.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by Romney2012:These laws are not about allowing the government to squash unpopular views or free speech. They are about squashing copyright infringement - something that is very unpopular with ISPs, DNS providers, etc who make a lot of money thru copyright infringing sites showing their ads or using their services. Tell me that you honestly believe that YouTube would have ever been allowed to exist if SOPA/PROTECT IP were in effect when YouTube was in its infancy.
Let's look at some facts;
YouTube was sued by Viacom, who claimed it was committing massive copyright infringement. Other corporations have also claimed that it doesn't do enough to prevent infringement and demanded changes.
Viacom sued YouTube because that was the only legal recourse available to them.
SOPA & PROTECT IP are both designed to streamline the process of getting sites taken down, based on the word of copyright holders.
Most copyright holders haven't shown much restraint when dealing with supposed infringement. Like having the clip of the baby dancing to a few seconds of a Prince song taken down, even though it was fair use.
With a new, legal way to have web sites taken offline, no corporation is going to go to the time and expense of filing a lawsuit to get a web site to change how they operate when they can simply demand that the web site be shut down. That's the entire point of the new laws.
Therefore if SOPA/PROTECT IP had been in effect six years ago, the various copyright holders would have simply demanded that YouTube be shut down and that would have been the end of user-generated video sites.
The church of scientology will demand the immediate shutdown of any and all sites that post its ridiculous brainwashing documents.
The entertainment industry will demand the shutdown of the Internet Arhive, which they've already labeled as a "rogue" site.
Nah, no way these laws would ever be abused...
said by Romney2012:Those opposing these laws trot out the free speech hobgoblin to divert attention from what they really fear - loss of money from all the infringing web sites using their services. So what you're saying is that only the entertainment industry is entitled to make money?
Really, that's what it comes down to. Maybe some companies are profiting from piracy, but don't these companies pay taxes? Don't they create jobs? Don't they contribute to the economy?
Money is being spent, the entertainment industry is just upset that it's not all going to them.
And before you trot out the "it's not OK to profit from someone else's work" argumnent, allow me to remind you that profiting from the work of others is exactly how commercial radio came about. Not to mention that the music industry has been repeatedly caught cheating their artists out of royalties, and the movie industry sets up dummy production companies so that it can charge/pay itself and claim a movie lost money in order to avoid paying royalties to the people who worked on it.
David Prowse, the actor inside the Darth Vader suit in all three original Star Wars movies hasn't been paid a single cent of his residuals for Return of the Jedi because despite making over $572 million, LucasFilm claims that the movie isn't profitable.
Care to explain that one and how it relates to not profiting from the work of others? | |
|
1 edit | Why would anybody want less freedom? If you support this you are an idiot. | |
| |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Why would anybody want less freedom? said by DataRiker:If you support this your an idiot.
Which I can guess is the very reason the first reply here is from someone i have on ignore. 
The shills talking points never lay out the damage to be done. When an entire domain can be taken down because of the content posted by one user of that site it will almost eliminate all of the non commercial internet as we know it. Which is VERY good for all the corporate types that want filtered content that makes them think in the proper ways.
And like you say, the focus can't all be just on SOPA either because the ProtectIP is still lurking.
Big sweeping bills that change life as we know it are not good things when pushed by multi-billion dollar industries.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | |
 WiseOldNerdDe gustibus non est disputandumPremium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ | Trust Politicians-NO WAY! Anyone who believes that the current crop of political whores in Congress has the best interests of the citizenry as their reason for existence is totally out of touch with reality.
--
My perception is REALITY | |
| | | | Re: Trust Politicians-NO WAY! said by WiseOldNerd:Anyone who believes that the current crop of political whores in Congress has the best interests of the citizenry as their reason for existence is totally out of touch with reality.
I agree
Its been decades since we have had a congress that did, it shall be decades more until we have another. | |
|
| | There is already a mechanism.... There is already a mechanism for dealing with copyright infringement and violations: it's called a lawsuit.
Much more serious than copyright violations is phishing sites, virus hosting sites, and sites that trick users into installing things like XP Antivirus 2012, etc. | |
| | | There is already a mechanism... There is already a mechanism for dealing with copyright infringement and violations: it's called a lawsuit.
Much more serious than copyright violations is phishing sites, virus hosting sites, and sites that appear trick users into installing things like XP Antivirus 2012, etc. | |
| Reviews:
·ProLog
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·voip.ms
| This Will Create Another New Service If this bill becomes law, another new cottage industry will spring up: Offshore DNS providers that are not redirecting look-ups to the Home Land Security page.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. | |
| | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: This Will Create Another New Service said by FBGuy:if need be they will just inject the hijacked dns entries at the root '.' server. The government will control the propagation of dns entries worldwide at that point. just b/c you have a .co.uk domain name the lookup starts at the '.' root server, then goes to the 'uk' root server. the 'uk' root server cannot supersede the '.' root server. The only way to make sure this never happens would be to create a different dns geological topology. I predict that someone will write a program to automate the addition of sites to a system's HOSTS file. If written properly, updates can be delivered through any port number, fully encrypted with a spoofed header to avoid being blocked by ISPs.
As far as I know, entries in the HOSTS file take precedence over any external DNS lookup and can't be overridden.
Not only would the program have an auto-update feature, but users would also be able to manually download and import updates from any source, if the IP addresses being used to deliver the automatic updates get blocked by ISPs. A quick trip to any of a hundred forums to grab the update list and you're back in business.
Sure, the list could end up getting quite large, but then again, users would typically only need one or two entries for each blocked domain, they wouldn't need one for every domain that a company registers. | |
|
| | Me thinks this bill should be named "patriotic American ACT Me thinks this bill should be named "patriotic American ACT". Almost all the fox news watchers would support it without question. No judicial oversight would be ever needed because a corporation can do no wrong. If anyone feels that they have been wronged they have the option to go to another country after all its free market. I would also say that the corporations should be allowed to execute capital punishment to protect their assets a kid who steals songs is the biggest threat to society because the same money could have been awarded as a bonus to the RIAA executive to encourage innovation and job creation | |
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | All these laws do is clarify already legal procedures
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···book.ars
A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites"—explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google—to "de-index" the domain names and to remove them from any search results.
"I'm sympathetic to the 'whack-a-mole' problem rights owners face, but this relief is just extraordinarily broad and is on shaky procedural grounds," he writes. "I'm not sure how this court can direct a registry to change a domain name's registrar of record or Google to de-list a site, but the court does so anyway. This is probably the most problematic aspect of the court's orders." {{new laws would regularize and clarify the rules about doing these seizures}}
Rightsholders have asked Congress to write these provisions (and a few more) into law, and they have pushed for government seizures like those from Operation In Our Sites. But as Balasubramani points out, cases like Chanel's show that rightsholders can already get what they want from judges, and they can go after far more sites more quickly than the government.
"The fight against SOPA [the Stop Online Piracy Act] may be a red herring in some ways," he notes, "since IP plaintiffs are fashioning very similar remedies in court irrespective of the legislation. Thus, even if SOPA is defeated, it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory—opponents may win the battle but may not have gained much as a result."
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
| | | It's not over-reaction, its stopping over-reaction. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ulevitch at the LISA 2010 conference last year. He is not someone who over-reacts. This is a guy who took clear, calculated, effective steps to correct a gap in design for the benefit of the users of the Internet. To continue to successfully run a company, especially one with a model others can readily copy and chip away at, is a clear measure of how capable he is as a business leader.
And he is just one of these leaders opposing the outright raping of our digital design for the "shoot first, surgery later" approach by the digital cops. This is nothing less than the western firewall as they have noted. It's not necessary, not helpful, and just not legal. This stupidity has to stop - this wave of outlandish overstepping of control by an faceless entity that claims to be doing it "for your own good". | |
|
| |
|
|
