
SOPA is a Red Herring - perkins
http://blog.curry.com/stories/2012/01/16/sopaIsARedHerring.html
======
spolsky
TL;DR - Adam is saying that the new top-level domains will require that you
prove your identity when you register with them.

First of all, I don't see any evidence of that. None of the links that he
provides include any such claim.

Second, he is claiming this only applies to the new global top level domains.
So, who cares? Nobody's going to use those anyway. They're going the way of
.biz and .info -- a permanently boring ghetto.

Adam also says "The entire reason for even trying to get a DNS provision into
law is because it is nearly impossible to track down the owner of a website,
or domain name, through today's registration tools."

That's not, actually, the reason. The reason to get the DNS provision into law
is to shut down websites operated from outside the United States where the US
does not have jurisdiction.

It is relatively easy for law enforcement to track down the owner of a domain.
It resolves to an IP address. The IP address is routed by hardware. The
hardware is located in physical space. As long as it's all in the United
States, it's just not that hard to find the operator of a website based on the
domain name, and that is not what the entertainment lobby is concerned about.
They are concerned with what happens when the operator is outside the US and
they don't have jurisdiction, so they want laws passed to ensure that US-based
ISPs are obliged to block access to foreign infringers.

Adam's analysis in this case is flat-out wrong.

~~~
danso
Yes, thank you for making me feel a little more confident that I'm not missing
the obvious-point-to-be-mad-about because I'm jaded/apathetic.

How many real life cases __has it been impossible to ascertain the identity of
trouble-causing site's owner, anyway? Everyone knows who is behind Wikileaks,
for example. Anyone else wanting to do disagreeable things is far more likely
to do it on the many existing platforms instead of hatching the complex fake-
identiy/credit-card scheme to purchase a TLD that can't be easily tracked to
him/her.

To become effective participnts in politica, the tech community activists have
to tilt less at thinly supported grand conspiracies and focus on the more
mundane workings of the sausage factory that produces our laws and
regulations.

 __EDIT: I realize I've set up a straw,an, and in fact, there are many
dissidents who'd like to have less requirements in registering a domain
name...but why they would go that route rather than creating fake accounts on
well-used services...in any case, Joel currently has the benefit of the doubt
in arguing that the OP is factually wrong

~~~
nl
It's actually pretty common for it to be impossible to determine who the
actual human is that registered a domain.

Between pre-paid credit cards, non-verification of whois records and corporate
registrations there are too many ways to avoid disclosing your identity.

(Currently, from memory, the only verification most registrars do is make you
is enter a real credit card number even if you aren't paying with that. Pre-
paid credit cards remove any identifying information from that.)

~~~
jleader
It may be hard to determine who's registered a domain name, but if you're
doing anything other than simply parking it, there are several points of
attack other than the domain name registration (hosting and credit card
processing being the most obvious 2).

~~~
nl
Hosting is certainly doable with pre-paid credit cards (and sometimes even
PayPal).

I'm not sure why this is even relevant anyway - the real problem with
enforcing IP rules isn't identifying the person - it's jurisdiction. If a site
is hosted outside the US and the domain is registered outside the US, and the
country where it is hosted and registered doesn't respect US IP laws then
there currently is very little anyone in the US can do about it (easily
anyway).

------
emehrkay
I feel very "get off of my law'ish" when I say that I miss anonymity on the
net. The way people share information, personal information, so freely
disturbs me. Now it is looking to be a government mandated thing. Has there
ever been a shift this big in regards to privacy?

~~~
pyre

      > The way people share information, personal
      > information, so freely disturbs me.
    

I'm curious for your perspective on this. Are you just talking about people
sharing their personal lives via Facebook (or location data via Foursquare,
etc)?

Are you also including:

* People that participate on mailing lists under their real name?

* People that blog under their real name?

* People that use their real name everywhere to build a 'personal brand' as a self-marketing scheme for things like getting jobs/contracts?

This isn't meant to be snarky, I'm actually interested in the answer. Because
some of those things (like using your real name on mailing lists/usenet) are
not new.

~~~
emehrkay
You mentioned the biggest offending platform, facebook. I look at my feed and
see people, my age and older, go into minute detail about their everyday
lives. I look at reddit and see young men and women expose themselves for no
reason in particular. Then you have people who act surprised when their very
public actions are used against them or in ways that they didnt expect.

I have no problem with people choosing to share their name, build their brand,
and use it to network because they are typically aware of the potential
downsides to doing such things. It is the lax actions of the kids that bother
me the most. That picture of yourself you posted is now on the internet where
it will most likely live forever. That [rac|sex|age|etc.]ist post you put on
twitter/facebook will live with you. Shit, wasnt there a post a few weeks back
about banks scouring your facebook situation to determine your credit
worthiness? There was an npr story about how a guy developed an iphone app
that could take your picture, scan fb, find your page, find other pics of you
online, and guess your social -- just from a single picture.

I just need to get with the times in a lot of cases, but oversharing is
something that I'm not cool with.

------
droithomme
Despite all the claims that confirming ID is just common sense, the fact is
that there are thousands of sites which are run by dissidents protesting
oppression and crimes of their governments. Anonymous/Fake Credential
registrations allow this to happen. So this is still very troublesome for free
speech.

~~~
astrodust
What is "ID" here? Rustling up a convincing looking piece of identification is
about as hard as finding a CD key these days.

------
kghose
The main point of the writer is that one can no longer hide ones identity when
registering domain names.

I actually think this is a GOOD idea. Here's why. Assuming currently you can
register a domain name with false credentials, the government can still track
you down, because you are leaving some sort of trail - you log into the
server, you pay the registration fees etc. However _I_ can't figure out who
you are? If you are a business, I can't track you down, if you want to hide.

If you had to present your true identity and I could look it up using a
"whois" then I can say "Ah hah! Company X is actually run by person M who
cheated me a few months ago, so I'm not going to deal with them"

~~~
dguaraglia
You are missing the point, completely. The only thing this facilitates is:

a) Companies generating blanket lawsuits b) The government tracking who says
what where

Hiding your identity has never been a problem for resourceful criminals. You
either setup an company with a new name or get a proxy ('testa ferro' is the
term I prefer) to do it for you.

Now, how many whistleblowers you'd think would be able to go through that just
to make _us_ (the general public) a favor? How many political dissidents
would?

In other words, yours is equivalent to the argument most people brandish when
talking about gun laws: "if guns were banned, then gun violence would go
down!". No, it wouldn't. Those outside the law would get them in the black
market, and those of us that abide to the rule of law would lose a valuable
weapon (no pun intended).

~~~
Anderkent
>"if guns were banned, then gun violence would go down!". No, it wouldn't.
Those outside the law would get them in the black market, and those of us that
abide to the rule of law would lose a valuable weapon (no pun intended).

How does it follow that violence would not go down? Clearly if only 'business
criminals' have access to guns, as opposed to everyone, there are in total
less gun holders, and thus less gun violence...

~~~
lazugod
Possibly because the legal users of guns do not use them as violently (on
purpose or by accident) when compared to 'business criminals'.

~~~
nkassis
This is starting to go offtopic but, I'd like to see data that shows that gun
related death excluding accident are more linked to business criminals or
gangs.

My current belief is most gun death are due to smaller things like family
issues, neighboors getting in fights etc.

------
trout
To an extent anonymity is the internet, for better or worse. Considering the
economic growth associated it would seem for the better. Unfortunately
bureaucracy seeps into the cracks of any complex system and ultimately changes
the dynamic until a new system must be created. I feel like the only control
we have is the pace; not the eventual steady state. The internet is
interesting because it's the only unregulated communication medium, and the
largest at that. Once security or code is written, who comes to remove it? How
can any group stay abreast of all issues?

It would seem a constitutional amendment would be the best option.

~~~
nirvana
I hate to disagree with you, but we already have a constitutional amendment,
as well as the key text of the constitution itself. The federal government is
not given the power to pass whatever legislation it wants, so long as congress
votes in favor, and the president sign and the supreme court doesn't strike it
down.

I know this is the perspective most people have, but the reality is the
constitution strictly limits what the government can do. This specification is
known as the "enumerated powers" clause of the constitution.

Much of what government does now- from the FCC to the FDA is not authorized by
in the enumerated power. If it isn't authorized then it is illegal, under the
document that enabled the creation of these branches of government in the
first place.

I don't think there's a higher form of the word "illegal" than that.

Further, and to really put the boot behind this point, the First Amendment
itself says:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."

This means the congress doesn't have the enumerated power, and further it is
explicitly forbidden from, passing laws that allow the government to silence
websites.

If a website is engaging in trademark infringement or copyright infringement,
they are naturally liable in civil court. But that doesn't give the government
the power to shut them down (other than them losing a civil case that takes
all their funding, or whatever.)

If any of these sites have a blog, then blocking the DNS or taking other
actions to restrict access to that blog is a violation of the constitution.

Further, there's Federal Law on this issue-- US Code 18-242, which makes it a
crime (a felony if armed) to violate someone's constitutional rights "under
color of law". Which means the government agents who enforce these "laws" are
also criminals.

But the idea that a law could be illegal, and that government employees
enforcing them could be criminals is just beyond the comprehension of most
people. They seem to believe, unlike the framers of the constitution, that the
government _IS_ the law.

And so they continue to get away with it and continue to expand their powers.

~~~
sirclueless
Your comment suggests a method of defense against DNS takedowns: Governmental
action forcing an ISP to block traffic to a blog is almost indisputably a
violation of first amendment rights. Therefore, even sites devoted to illegal
activity cannot be blocked via DNS without violating the first amendment, so
long as they host a blog.

If a US citizen decided for philosophical reasons to host their blog on
thepiratebay.org, I can imagine some interesting legal battles down the road.

------
jof
There are a couple of factual errors in this piece that I feel obligated to
point out: 1\. The root DNS server pool only hosts glue pointing TLDs to other
pools of servers that administrate those TLDs. No amount of pressure on ICANN
or the root server operators can debilitate a single non-TLD domain name. 2\.
Not all registrars and/or TLD operators exist in the US. All it would take is
doing business with an international registrar that doesn't agree with the
rules to circumvent DNS tampering laws. 3\. In. Theory

------
jof
There are a couple of factual errors in this piece that I feel obligated to
point out: 1\. The root DNS server pool only hosts glue pointing TLDs to other
pools of servers that administrate those TLDs. No amount of pressure on ICANN
or the root server operators can debilitate a single non-TLD domain name. 2\.
Not all registrars and/or TLD operators exist in the US. All it would take is
doing business with an international registrar that doesn't agree with the
rules to circumvent DNS tampering laws. 3\. In theory, ICANN already requires
registrants to maintain accurate information in WHOIS. Registrants should be
receiving annual notices from registrars to remind them of this fact. We can
all see how well this is working. :p

The issue with providing "identity" to register a domain is that there's no
portable, international way of doing so. What does an "identity" consist of? A
name? There's plenty of good discussion on this topic in the nymwars.

However, I do agree with SOPA being a red herring, and it's unfortunate that
big. Players are still planning a blackout even though the legislature is
already backpedaling on the worst bits of the language. What if next month the
DOPA (Decapitating Online Piracy Act) bill comes along and it's much worse.
Would big sites be willing to continue shutting down their services for each
crazy bill that comes around?

I feel like the endgame of the US futzing with the Internet will just result
in other, international bodies taking on the operations of core infrastructure
(a la The ORSN project; Vixie saw SOPA coming!), edging out US influence on
this medium that the whole world enjoys.

------
sigmaxipi
A gTLD has an initial price of "$185,000, with an annual fee of $25,000".
Someone who wants to run a piracy website will probably opt for a cheaper
domain. And anyone who can shell out tham much cash can probably afford a
lawyer or some other level of indirection to hide their true identity.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-
level_domain#June_2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-
level_domain#June_20.2C_2011_vote_on_expansion_of_gTLDs)

------
kuahyeow
> You must verify who you are when you register a new domain name, even an
> international one.

Not sure how requirement to register has to do with new gTLDs - as mentioned
in preceding paragraph.

Reading down a few paragraphs reveals the reference to Thick Whois. But Thick
whois has been around for some gTLDs now.

That and insults thrown around makes for some poor writing and hyperbole

------
ilaksh
The other legislation he mentions is probably also important, so I hope people
will pay attention and block or attempt to modify it if that is necessary.

I thought he was going to say something about NDAA, because although
protecting the internet is very important to our freedom, the new NDAA
legislation with regards to indefinite detention of American citizens without
trial is a direct attack that has already been successful and needs to be
repealed.

[http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detent...](http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/)

[http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-C...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf)

------
marshray
In theory, you're supposed to provide accurate WHOIS information when
registering a .com second level domain.

I don't like ICANN's gTLD racket, but the whole crux of their plan _is_ that
they will be doing $185,000 worth of due diligence legal research before
granting it. Even if ICANN for some reason wanted not to require registration
info, it's generally illegal (in the US) to transfer that kind of cash
anonymously.

------
mp76
It looks like the White House will not support the bill. Thumbs up for them...
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-
sa...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-
sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/)

------
joshfraser
I agree we may have become too focused on fighting the specific bills, instead
of the heart of the issue. For example, the domain seizures via ICE haven't
got nearly as much attention, but they're ALREADY happening and are just as
dangerous for the future of the web.

------
nirvana
Assuming SOPA, et al, are defeated, there is some real news here:

1\. The government(S) have decided that anonymity on the internet, is not a
god given right.

2\. There is a battle going on. Defeating SOPA at best will produce a delay.
The language will appear again in other legislation or will change to be less
obvious or will pass without anyone realizing it.

3\. The intentions of the government are clear. They believe they have the
right to regulate the internet, at a fundamental level. This is bad news,
because if they are able to do so, we risk the internet becoming like airlines
were back in the Pan Am era. (If you haven't seen it The Aviator, by Martin
Scorsese is a great movie.)

4\. Even if there is no legislation passed, the government is currently
(illegally, as far as I can tell) censoring the internet by shunting dot coms
and dotnets to a DHS website via Verisign rolling over to their demands (the
torrent site attacks of last year.)

5\. There is no method that we can use to fight this. Nobody even is trying to
fight the PATRIOT ACT, or NDAA, etc. Once passed, they are carved in stone,
and even if they aren't passed, what can we do?

It's time to try and find a way to route around censorship, and let my grandma
still be able to find what she's looking for without knowing what DNS is.

~~~
sirclueless
Playing devil's advocate for a second: The fact that the internet can be
almost entirely anonymous and unaccountable is something of a historical
accident. There aren't many places as impervious to governmental interference
on this planet as the internet.

Having a right to privacy is one thing. Having a right to unaccountability in
the face of a legal warrant obtained through due process is another entirely.

Inasmuch as the global, distributed nature of the internet makes executing a
warrant near impossible, I am not opposed _in principle_ to legislation
enabling technical measures for enforcement. That said, I am vehemently
opposed to hamfisted solutions that waive due process in favor of "good faith"
takedown notices to ISPs.

~~~
wladimir
_The fact that the internet can be almost entirely anonymous and unaccountable
is something of a historical accident_

The best things in life are something of a historical accident. You can't plan
for the good, unexpected stuff. That doesn't mean it is not worth preserving
or fighting for.

Don't get me wrong: I am not principally opposed to legal warrants being
enforced, if fair and just. But this does exclude special interest groups with
a lot of money buying the law in their favor, to be able to remove everything
they don't like, such as evidence of their crimes.

------
choros12
US citizen living in Poland here. Here it is how providing the 'real name'
will work in local circumstances here: Let's say I want to register
piratebay.shark. I go to a nearby bum and for a small fee get his passport,
IDs, etc, provide it to GoDaddy for registration. Good Luck ever finding out
who I'm.

This may work very well in the US, but not in other places in the world where
people had to deal with laws limiting their rights for decades.

------
rkon
> " _without onerous licenses and unreasonable disclosures of personal
> information_ clearly indicates you will have to provide verification of your
> identity, which in today's world is not a requirement."

Really? _That's_ his proof that ID will be required? I must be blind, because
that doesn't seem clear to me at all. In fact, it almost seems to imply the
opposite of what he's saying.

