
Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain - Heliosmaster
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-finds-safe-haven-in-iceland-switches-to-is-domain-130425/
======
spoiledtechie
What I wonder about, is they should be the "creators" and steering committee
for the worlds own PnP DNS servers... I would gladly host a small portion of
DNS spaces on my machines running at home...

~~~
AnthonyMouse
DNS is probably the wrong word. You want some new method of name resolution,
not DNS.

The thing with DNS is that it actually works pretty well as a distributed
system. There are a bunch of different people responsible for different TLDs.
If the operator of one TLD is censoring you, you can use a different one.

There are really two primary concerns with DNS. The first is that even if you
have a domain using a TLD whose operators are unwilling to censor it, local
DNS resolvers can still try to block it. This is not that hard to fix; either
use a DNS server in a different country or (if your network blocking non-local
DNS) do your DNS queries over Tor or some other secure proxy. It's also one of
the things that DNSSEC or DNSCurve are supposed to prevent, if anyone would
ever get around to implementing either of them. So this is solvable but non-
ideal because it requires all the individual end-users to do something.

The second problem is that ICANN doesn't allow just anyone to operate a TLD,
which means that the TLD operators themselves become choke points. Then
censorial entities who see a TLD operator refusing to censor can put pressure
on them (or their home country's government) to try to force the censorship.

So what you want is really to replace ICANN and the TLD operators with
something more distributed, but the question is, with what? If you want a
memorable but globally unique name then you need some method for everyone in
the world to agree who it is that name should refer to. Right now the method
is "if the name ends in .com, it refers to who Verisign says it does" and so
on for other TLDs. You have trusted entities who can authoritatively determine
who controls the domain.

I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that namecoin is trying to fix this
with something along the lines of bitcoin, where whoever uses a name first
gets to keep it. The problem there is that you need a way to make sure when it
becomes popular you don't end up with a land grab and all the reasonable names
end up in the hands of scammers and squatters, and I'm also not sure how
they're addressing transferability and abandonment.

Just thinking out loud here, but how about this: Create a version of ICANN
that works like IETF. No relationship to ICANN other than to refuse to issue
TLDs that have already been issued by ICANN (and hopefully vice versa). Then,
if you want a TLD, you can go to this group of people (who are maybe people
like EFF members or well-known security researchers or activists) and they
come to a consensus about whether you should get the TLD. So if EFF asks for
".eff" they get it. If ACLU asks for ".aclu" they get it. If La Quadrature du
Net asks for ".lqdn" they get it. If Debian Foundation asks for ".debian" they
get it. FSF gets ".fsf" on and on. But if some scammer asks for ".bank" they
can go pound sand. Maybe make them sub-domains, so you end up with ".eff.foo"
and they all end in ".foo" (insert whatever you like) to reduce possible
collisions with ICANN. The idea will be to have domains outside the control of
ICANN or anyone in particular and issue several hundred to generally well-
known and trustworthy entities who are likely to resist censorship efforts.
Then those entities can issue "wikileaks.aclu" _and_ "wikileaks.eff" to
wikileaks etc., so censoring them requires censoring all the anti-censorship
organizations.

Once the working group assigns a TLD, they no longer have any involvement.
They don't operate any technical infrastructure. All they do is publish the
name of the domain and the public key of the entity it's assigned to (which
can be used to sign domains in the TLD), to serve as the authority for
resolving namespace collisions. Once an assignment is made it's permanent and
irrevocable. The assigned organization's public key gets published and browser
and OS vendors start including it and using it to authenticate domains in the
TLD, resolved using whatever distributed system you like (that part is
basically a solved problem) to map names to addresses.

~~~
smokeyj
Could something like Namecoin address these concerns?

<https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin>

~~~
ZeroCoin
Most definitely. You are talking about the dot-bit DNS project in particular.
See here for more details: <http://dot-bit.org>

~~~
gillianseed
This was most interesting, thanks for the link. I should have my hacker
credentials revoked for not picking this up on my radar.

------
sorenbs
I have been reading up on sub marine cables lately as the cable cuts in Egypt
has reduced our international data transfer substantially here in Bangladesh.

This add from one of the companies in that market got me thinking that TPB
should start a fundraiser to establish fiber connection to such an independent
island and thereby gain greater independence.

[http://www.buysellbandwidth.com/groupbuying/deals_detail.php...](http://www.buysellbandwidth.com/groupbuying/deals_detail.php?deal=81)

~~~
Nursie
Ooops, we accidentally dropped our anchor right on your cable! Sorry about
that....

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption>

------
k-mcgrady
It seems the switch to a new domain name has broken the ISP censorship in the
UK. thepiratebay.se redirects to a site blocked page. thepiratebay.is works.

I'm sure it won't be long until they block it again but this domain change as
well as the numerous proxy sites setup to bypass the block go to show that
it's a waste of time to even try blocking stuff like this.

Does anyone know if the ISP's will be automatically required to block the new
domain or if it would have to go through court again?

Edit: I'm using TalkTalk

~~~
lectrick
Wait... Pirate Bay is blocked (out of the box) in the UK? That's rather
draconian for a first-world nation...

~~~
w1ntermute
The modern UK is essentially a police state.

------
ZeroCoin
I wonder when they'll switch to thepiratebay.bit ?

To help make that happen, take a look at Namecoins and the dot-bit.org
project.

------
duskwuff
Is there any more to this "move" than any of their previous moves, including:

    
    
      * Sealand - proposed only (2007)
      * Netherlands - hosting (2009?)
      * Sweden - domain only? (Feb 2012)
      * North Korea - elaborate hoax (Mar 2013)
      * Greenland - domain only, quickly switched back (Apr 2013)

------
jokoon
already switched to kickass torrents.

people might one day share their bittorrent sync keys, it will be oh so fun

------
ancarda
Is the TPB accessible over Tor?

~~~
andreasvc
Yes.

~~~
ancarda
To clarify, I meant if there was a hidden service. Not if there was
functioning exit nodes that can access the website.

~~~
andreasvc
That I don't know. But if you're going for anonymity you probably shouldn't
use torrents anyway, especially not public ones.

There are lots of interesting anonymous P2P protocols, although I don't think
people care about it enough for any of them to have gained traction.

~~~
haakon
The Pirate Bay's hidden service is primarily for evading censorship, and it's
useful in that sense, since no government can block hidden services.

------
fakeer
Can they actually hold off collective might of media houses and billionaires
who actually call the shots and make politicians dance to their tunes, mostly
because of they have taken the dirty money? What if the bullies resort to
proxy arm twisting?

One must remember Iceland was invaded[1] by the British during WW2!

 _PS._ An invasion is an invasion even if it was said that the invasion was to
pre-empt another invasion.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland>

[update: _invasion_ in a sense as to coerce a country to achieve desired
result by hook or by crook]

~~~
archgrove
I'm not really sure it's _bullying_ per se, to try and stop the mass illegal
downloading of your content. It's not like they've got thugs at the door,
they're just trying to shut down a site who's sole purpose is enabling the
illegal downloading, and who has no interest in co-operating with even nicely
worded, fair requests. I'm not a great fan of the entertainment industry, but
if people were doing this to YC startups who focus on IP production, would the
level of "support" be the same?

I mean, what alternative do people suggest for these companies? That they
ignore it, thus tacitly approve it, until _everyone_ uses and doesn't bother
with legal avenues? I hear a lot about "Well, find a new business model!",
without explaining why a company should be forced to change based on clearly
illegal activity. Even accepting the pragmatic argument that "It's going to
happen anyway", I'm curious as to what business model people are suggesting?

~~~
belorn
Im going to try to keep it short, but its hard given the many different topic
you touched on.

Any company that solely depend on government granted monopolies for their
businesses model will have a hard time to claim a moral high ground or demand
that the sovereign of foreign countries should be violated.

The business model I would suggest is one that do not solely depend on
government grants. That would likely be to produce a product or rendering a
service that others are willing to pay for.

~~~
archgrove
Can you suggest a business not dependent on government grants? As far as I can
tell, _every business in the world_ is. Any form of property rights is a
government granted monopoly. The only natural law is "If I'm bigger than you,
I'll take what I want". No matter what business you're in, you're relying on
government protection to stop me just smacking you on the head and taking your
stuff, whether it's tangible physical goods or IP. They only difference here
is that the internet has rendered the head smacking part obsolete for IP, so
people can skip straight to taking the stuff.

~~~
belorn
I have heard this argument before, but you are making a rather big claim when
doing so. If all property rights is government granted monopolies, you are
then saying that the government is the owner of all and everyone’s property.

That mean you don't own that car. Its the government car that they have given
to you under a granted permission to use it. Same goes for your house. All
they need to render the third amendment void is taking back their granted
permission. Basically we are now describing a capitalistic governed country
like the US as if it worked like an communist controlled one.

So before I continue down this line, do you really claim that government is
the rightful owner of everyones property? If not, then we must separate
physical property with government granted permissions.

~~~
archgrove
The government doesn't _own_ it, but it enforces the right that _you_ own it.
Both for physical goods in the obvious way, and IP via the way of copyright.

~~~
betterunix
Except that the notion of property ownership predates written records and
organized government. Copyright was started in the 17th century to address the
failure of previous censorship efforts in a world of new technology (the
printing press), and eventually became a means by which printers could secure
a competitive advantage.

We now live in a world where the machines needed to copy things are commonly
owned by individuals. Copyright, having been designed to regulate industry, is
massively out of date -- individuals do not have the resources needed to
decide if they are abiding by copyright. Even the entertainment companies that
cry about the importance of copyrights know this, which is why they keep
pushing for DRM. No sane person actually believes that normal people are going
to stop and think about whether or not they are obeying copyright laws; that
is just not how people generally behave.

The truth is, in the 21st century copyright is nothing more than a red flag
law that exists solely to protect obsolete industries.

~~~
rayiner
> Except that the notion of property ownership predates written records and
> organized government.

What people have in the absence of government is not property, but merely
possession. No more or less binding on anyone else than a dog with a bone.

~~~
Zigurd
At least you are consistent: You make our rights a creation of government.
This has the interesting side-effect of elevating intellectual property to the
same level as real property.

You have to wonder if the framers talked about our actual natural rights in
such disrespectful terms: "The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the
incitement to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a
limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is
too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

------
ttrreeww
Congratulations to Iceland! Keeping the dream alive!

