
US Government Censors 70 Websites - iuguy
http://www.osnews.com/story/24074/US_Government_Censors_70_Websites
======
hebejebelus
Some observations:

* I checked one of the sites they blocked at random, and they're using Google Analytics to track views. GA can be used to track a hell of a lot of things, as I'm sure every reader of this site knows, including location of views. They're also using Pikwik analytics. <speculation>Pikwik is OSS, so they could have modified the code to do some thing GA doesn't.</speculation>

* Torrent-Finder.com had about 1.7million page views a day[0], so I suppose it seemed like a good target. However, many of the other sites blocked don't even register. In fact, they all seem like those extremely shady sites that very few people would ever actually visit. Torrent-Finder.com seems to have been the only properly popular site on the list (onsmash.com has rather high pageviews also, ~610,000 pv/d) <speculation>My question is why the hell did they hit torrent-finder.com when virtually every other site on the list probably couldn't have kicked up a media storm?</speculation>

* Every site is now hosted in Charlotte, North Carolina. DHS ICE seem to have some sort of facility there, but I've not been able to find much info on it at all. <speculation>Torrent-finder.com seems to have been hosted in Egypt beforehand. Does this affect the legality at all?</speculation>

* The two (as far I as i saw) most popular sites, onsmash.com and torrent-finder.com, had their traffic peaks during the second half of 2009[1]. Furthermore, the majority of traffic for Torrent-Finder.com was well outside the USA - eastern Europe, mostly[2].

* The sites that have been seized seem to mostly have been sites to buy knockoffs of designer clothing/accessories/what have you. Not as many seemed to be file-sharing websites.

[0] <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=torrent-finder.com> [1]
[http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-
finder.com%2C+onsmash...](http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-
finder.com%2C+onsmash.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all) [2]
[http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-
finder.com&ctab=0...](http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-
finder.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)

<hyperbole><opinion>To me, it seems the only real answer is to use alternate
DNS roots. This one's been compromised.</opinion></hyperbole>

~~~
smokeyj
The government is __censoring our means of communications __, end of story. If
they see it as their role to control my information, it doesn't matter if we
find a new DNS system, their agenda is set. My DNS server is not broke, the
government is. Lets fix the problem, not the internet.

~~~
sukuriant
"My DNS server is not broke, the government is. Lets fix the problem, not the
internet."

Yes, the government is broken in this regard, but I would contend that your
DNS is broken, too, and here's why. Your DNS provides your computer with
directions to the next point of interest. Right now, it's pointing you to
where you don't want to go because it's been told to, or the government has
illegally seized the final location, etc. In this way, the DNS server is
~broken~. Not in its ability to look up map values, but in its ability to
provide the correct ones.

If your GPS only told you where govn't controlled gas stations are, and you
wanted to use Non-Govn't-Standard, you'd change GPSes, finding the current one
unsatisfactory, or perhaps broken. (where broken in this context means "not
doing what you want").

------
ig1
Wikileaks _did_ have their name seized in the US, it happened as part of the
"Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit" - but it was overturned with the
judge citing First Amendment concerns (ACLU and EFF filed motions in Wikileaks
defence).

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
sources?

~~~
ig1
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_lawsuit)

------
srbloom
Is this only a DNS block? Can you still get to these websites by pointing your
browser directly to an IP address?

------
wladimir
Pretty shocking. Then again, people get the government they vote for and the
USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time.

But I don't agree that this is a case of forcing anything on the world,
com/org/net are US domain extensions, so I guess they have the right to
control those. We're free to not use US domain names.

On the other hand, with ACTA the USA _will_ force its view on the world.

~~~
JabavuAdams
> Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly
> been decline to being a banana republic for a long time.

This is an unintentionally funny sentence, because the US essentially created
banana republics. See United Fruits Company.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic>

~~~
wladimir
Yes, the US created banana republics. Can't argue with that..

But the banana republics are going forward, while the US seems to be going the
other way. Just look at the poor/rich divide, for example.

------
timurlenk
Could it be that the DNS system needs to be decentralized and deregulated? How
difficult is it to implement a P2P based name lookup system?

~~~
cosmicray
The DNS root servers are already decentralized. The issue here is that the
domains in question are registered with registrars (and/or utilizing name
servers) that are under US legal jurisdiction.

If you want to do something that you don't want US authorities having control
over, then move it to a jurisdiction that does not care what the US says (and
good luck finding such a place, unless it was Iran or DPRK).

~~~
dedward
At a basic level - a court order from the US (whatever level of court) issued
directly to, say, a registrar in the UK would have absolutely no legal
standing as far as the registrar was concerned.

The US may have a heck of a lot of swing when it comes to overall global
policy, but that doesn't mean foreign entities just, like, obey their court
orders - that would be absurd.

~~~
kgo
Right on. Notice thepiratebay.org is still up and running. the registrar: Key-
Systems GmbH (R51-LROR).

I tried running whois's on some of the banned names to see what registrars
were cooperating, if it was all (for example) GoDaddy, but any pertinent info
has been stripped out from the entries.

Anyone know how I can get the original registration info?

------
grantheaslip
I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good
riddance:

[http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-
sea...](http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-
engine-domain-and-more-101126/)

Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth.
I'm not familiar with every site personally, but I have little doubt that they
were all involved in flagrant copyright infringement.

And looking at torrent-finder.info, I have no doubt that 99.99% of the people
going to that site were going there for the purpose of stealing stuff, not
finding linux distros. The cheeky incredulity with which fans of these sites
say "it's not _their_ fault that everyone that uses their site is using it to
traffic stolen goods!" is laughably transparent.

The western world is moving away from manufacturing physical goods, and these
idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content
either. What's going to be left? Finance?

There's a totally legitimate slippery slope argument to made for not blocking
websites, and this story does smell bad in terms of legal due process, but I
have a _really_ hard time feeling sorry for the degenerates who ran theses
sites.

~~~
gojomo
_these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces
content either_

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is
less new music being produced today? Or is more?

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as
long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer
movies made today? Or more?

There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via
no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the
evidence so far, seem to be one of them.

 _good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the
scum of the earth._

First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good
riddance', because I'm not scum.

Then...

Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is
it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal
hearing?

~~~
grantheaslip
Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be
produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't
completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-
budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be
made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews.

And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we
know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give
away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part
they haven't, at least not yet.

And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've
probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly
evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I
personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit
goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much
of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly
selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on
this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual
scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit
goods whenever the internet is involved.

~~~
gojomo
Fees paid per copy are only one traditional way to compensate creators. Copy
fees don't work so well once digital technology becomes ubiquitous, and may be
viewed by future generations as barbaric, because such fees may deny minds the
education and culture they crave based on an arbitrary monopolistic price,
unrelated to the cost of either original production or reproduction.

If per-copy fees were the only way to get necessary creative production, as
you seem to suggest, that would be one thing. But your theory doesn't yet seem
to be playing out. Rising piracy has loosely correlated, over the past decade-
plus, with even more creation of the pirated types of content.

So the siege and retribution mentality -- "never mind due process, line the
scum up against the wall and let 'em have it!" -- doesn't make any sense.

~~~
grantheaslip
Again, _this isn't your decision to make_. These companies may be acting in a
way that you consider counter-productive (and you may be right), but that
doesn't give you the right to take their content in a way that they haven't
allowed.

~~~
gojomo
It's our decision as a society how much of a monopoly we grant copyright
holders, and whether we also grant them the ability to seize property, like
domain names, without due process.

Our society is richer because Jobs and Wozniak, before they founded Apple,
helped people steal telecommunications services. The world is more connected
because Zennstrom and Friis, before they made Skype, behaved like 'scum' in
your eyes with file-sharing Kazaa. Our culture is richer because whole genres
of music and other creative arts have at times ignored the rules against
sampling, collage, and other reuse.

The simple 'always defer to all prior rules' argument isn't welfare-maximizing
for either individuals or the world.

And even as we enforce current laws, which I accept as a general necessity,
the accused deserve a chance to make their case, and the standards for
enforcement need to be clear and applied evenly. A surprise domain-name
seizure without notice only makes sense in emergency situations.

~~~
kgo
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't see how you can say Apple
and Skype exist because of Blue Boxes and Kazaa. That's like saying "The
Pianist" exists because Roman Polanski raped some 13 year old...

~~~
chc
"The Pianist" was not a more advanced expression of Polanski's sexual
predilections. Those entrepreneurs' later tech ventures were more advanced
expressions of the same causes that led to their early ones. Cutting off theif
technical and entrepreneurial careers early might very well have created a
different world today.

------
risotto
I'll play a bit of a contrarian and say that I'm not the least concerned about
this.

The Internet is a grossly complicated system, and the ability to have
nfljerseysupply.com resolve to your website is far from a given right. ISPs,
web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors,
and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work. Each player has to
cooperate to make your website reachable, therefore each player has the
ability to make your website hard or impossible to reach.

It's scary if the US government has powerful legal tools to take down any
website (see: China), but the US govt. has a track record of going after only
a few criminals, not performing political censorship. So do all the players.
Also, COICA, which would make this act easier, got gummed up in the Senate.

I don't know any details, but would you expect counterfeit websites to remain
humming along while DHS raids warehouses involved with illegal manufacturing,
importing or exporting of counterfeit goods?

The torrent search engine is a different beast, and by following legal
precedent I'd expect the owner to be cleared of wrongdoing if and when it goes
to trial. I also suspect the owner is being disingenuous, and was operating
the site under a shell, making it difficult to find him and serve him warnings
or legal papers.

I also interpret this as a sign that the media corporations are fucked. This
is the best they can do with their global power, influence and money? Take out
some counterfeiters and one lowly search engine?

Yes, we must be diligent against the government and corporations, but if this
is all they have then it's nothing I'm going to get worked up over.

~~~
smokeyj
> ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS
> vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work.

One of these things is not required for my browser to work. Hint: it starts
with "govern"

~~~
risotto
ICANN, world governments and the entire TLD system are incestuously
intertwined. ICANN is a US corporation mandated by Clinton and George W. Bush.

The Internet is ARPANET.

~~~
adestefan
The Internet is ARPANET.

Actually it's not. The Internet that we know today is really NSFNet that was
created because the DoD was sick of freeloaders riding on ARPANET. The DoD had
very little input on the creation of NSFNet. What was ARPANET is now NIPRNet.

This is one of the many things that I learned by reading Where Wizards Stay Up
Late: The Origins Of The Internet. It's a fascinating look at how the Internet
was created and focuses mainly on the financial and management side of the
creation from about 1965-85.

------
hsmyers
While it no longer makes economic sense to manufacture buggy whips, perhaps
there is a Renaissance in the construction and sale of jack boots?

~~~
jrd79
I don't understand why so many people on this site defend intellectual
property theft. I own a small software company that suffers from piracy every
day. I worked day and night without pay for more than a year to write the
software that I now make my living from. And after all that hard work the
thugs and criminals at The Pirate Bay and elsewhere just steal it and make
money off the ads or subscriptions. IP is a central and essential part of the
world order and no single thinker in the piracy movement has advanced any
serious alternative - and yes, I include Lessig in this.

Maybe the loud voices in this forum just enjoy stealing other peoples work
without having their own work stolen, but bogus free speech arguments and
hysterics about jack boots do not justify what is at it's core an immoral act.

~~~
araneae
I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right
to do whatever we want with it... and that includes giving it to friends. The
problem with the Internet is that it makes it possible to bypass original
sales in an unprecedented way because the cost of giving it to strangers comes
at no cost to us.

Any solutions necessarily involves infringing on free speech (this) or
infringing on an individual's right to do what they want with their purchases
(DRM), so yes, I do support torrenting.

~~~
anigbrowl
_I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our
right to do whatever we want with it..._

So, if you rent a car, does that mean its OK to drive it around the corner and
sell it to someone else? you paid to get hold of the car, so it's yours, yes?

Oh, wait, no it isn't. You paid to rent it for a finite period under certain
conditions, and signed a contract to that effect. the same is usually the case
where software is concerned, but since you don't like the terms of the
software contract too much, you feel free to ignore it, and redefine your
licensing of the software as a purchase, granting yourself all kinds of new
rights which the original creator never intended to give to end users. Now,
you're welcome to say that software is way overpriced or those terms are so
onerous you refuse to comply with them, a point of view I have some sympathy
with. But at least be honest about the fact that you're choosing to ignore the
contractual terms offered by the licensor and agreed to by the licensee.

edit: I don't mind being downvoted, but at least point out why you think the
argument is flawed. Otherwise you're just blaming the weatherman for telling
you that its raining.

~~~
chopsueyar
Maybe because you are comparing intellectual property to a physical object?

~~~
anigbrowl
Ah, but I'm not. I'm distinguishing between a purchase and a limited license.

I used the analogy of the car because we're familiar with it - we all
understand you can buy a car, and also that you can rent one on a temporary
basis. The kind of transactions you can perform on an object are not a
function of the object itself.

So with software (or a movie or book etc. etc.) I could sell you all the
rights: not just to use/watch/read it as a consumer, but to exploit it for
commercial gain as a publisher. This is like the purchase of a car; you can do
whatever you want with the property you now own. Or I could just grant you a
limited license, reserving other rights for myself, as with the rental
situation. This is what happens now when you 'buy' a piece of software or
media - you're really buying the rights to a single copy of it. You can still
do whatever you want with that single copy, but as soon as you start making
your own copies - even if you're giving them away for free, or simply making
them available via bittorrent - then you've gone into the publishing business.
Now I don't necessarily approve of this approach, but that's how things are.
You're getting into a contract with a publisher when you buy their wares, just
as surely as if you had rented a car. That it's trivially easy to circumvent
the terms of that contract doesn't alter the fact that you're a party to it.

Look at it this way: suppose you owned a printing company, and you happen to
have all the technology you need to make books of any kind. And let's say you
can also easily get them into bookstores. You get a hardback copy of _Harry
Potter's Secret Diary_ , a supplement to the popular series of books that is
sure to sell millions. Since you have a book-style printing press on hand, you
spend a busy week making plates and then rush out a paperback edition, on
which you make a handsome profit. You've used your own paper, ink etc., so the
original publisher is no worse off and hasn't lost a single copy of their
stock.

Is this cool?

~~~
chopsueyar
Did _Harry Potter's Secret Diary_ contain a EULA?

I get into a contract with a publisher when I buy their wares?

I have never had to sign a contract when purchasing a book AND I have never
not signed (always requred to sign) a contract when renting a vehicle.

Again, physical objects and intellectual property are not the same thing.

------
DanielBMarkham
Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests.
Indeed, the only reason for political parties is to have places where various
special interests can line up against each other.

In the past there has always been enough time to create a narrative so that
the parties can "make sense" to the voters. One party doesn't say it's
supporting trial lawyers: instead it's "looking out for the little people".
Another party doesn't support the military-industrial complex, instead it's
providing for the defense of the nation. In other words, its possible to spin
these special interests in such a fashion as to appeal to the little guy. This
makes people buy into what the government is doing -- the consent of the
governed.

But the wheels seem to be coming off the trolley -- it's becoming apparent
that technology is changing so fast that the political parties can't catch
their narratives up with reality. When you had communists threatening to
conquer the world for thirty years, there was plenty of time to make a strong
case for a defense industry. When you had super-huge corporations threatening
the citizenry with pollution and such, it was easy to make a case for
environmental laws and enormous lawsuits.

But file-sharing? Photo-realistic-capable naked body scans? Imposing total
data visibility into the world's financial systems? Declaring that Americans
still owe taxes even if they leave the country for tax reasons?

There may be very valid and reasonable arguments to be made for each of these
things, but in my opinion nobody has made them yet. Instead, we just have a
fear of one thing trotted out -- terrorism, big corporations, whatever -- and
then we're told that these things we have lost were for a good reason.

Making matters worse is that some special interests, such as the movie, music,
and software guys, (and the security guys) have effectively bought off both
parties. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, you're stuck with doing
whatever these interests want. And its becoming more and more apparent that
these interests will use the full force of law to go after anybody they see as
an enemy to their cause.

Even though I'm emotional about this, I see no reason to rant and rave. It's
not going to change anything, and getting emotional just gives other people
something to make fun of. In my opinion this current trajectory cannot
continue for many decades longer. That's just the way it is, no matter what
each individual's opinion on each of these issues may be.

I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan, when asked why he left the Democrat party,
said, "I didn't leave the party. The party left me."

I certainly hope the same thing doesn't happen to the consent of the governed
in most of the world's major democracies.

EDIT: If you'd like a startup/technology angle to this, then my advice is not
to go into business in any area that one of these interests might be involved
-- unless you have strong political connections (or are willing to develop
them). If you're able to develop those connections, however, it should be like
shooting fish in a barrel.

~~~
Dove
_Governments have always used their power to try to further special
interests._

The US as a constitutional republic was designed to frustrate that tendency.
Recent calls for the repeal of the 17th amendment (senators used to be
selected by state legislatures; that amendment made it popular vote instead)
are based on that argument.

[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252825/repeal-
sevente...](http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252825/repeal-seventeenth-
amendment-todd-zywicki)

    
    
       Under the original arrangement, senators had strong    
       incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that 
       their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators 
       who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas 
       House members were considered representatives of the 
       people, senators were considered ambassadors of their 
       state governments to the federal government and, like 
       national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject 
       to instruction by the parties they represented (although 
       not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). 
       And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the 
       national government only the power necessary to perform 
       its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and 
       building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the 
       federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as 
       war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level 
       after the crisis had passed. Today, as historian Robert 
       Higgs has observed, federal expansion creates a “ratchet 
       effect.”
    
       Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the 
       Senate as originally conceived was essential to the 
       system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the 
       division of the legislature into two houses elected by 
       different constituencies — was designed to frustrate 
       special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62 
       that basing the House and Senate on different constituent 
       foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . . 
       against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the 
       concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority 
       of the state governments before a law could enacted. By 
       resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency 
       base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment 
       substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on 
       interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for 
       the modern special-interest state.

~~~
tonystubblebine
This is pretty interesting. Do you know what the argument was for passing the
17th amendment? What's the downside trade-off?

~~~
adammichaelc
There's no clear argument for why direct-election became so popular. There
were mostly vague arguments given such as direct-election would somehow fight
against the cozy relationships between industry and the Senate, or end bribery
in Senatorial politics.[1]

It seems that what was behind the movement to the popular vote was a strong
populist sentiment without clear reason; or at least without a reason that
made sense.[1]

Last I checked, bribery and cozy industry relationships in the Senate were not
stopped by the 17th amendment. I doubt they will ever stop. Power and money
tend to mingle, and that part of human nature will probably never go away.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
klbarry
There are some strong arguments that a senate operating behind closed doors
would be more effective at ignoring special interests and working together
than otherwise. The writers of the constitution did just this (they swore
secrecy of anything they talked about in the convention to avoid voter
backlash) [1] This is why they initially wanted health care debates behind
closed doors - the lobbyists can make much more use of transparency than the
uninterested voter can. Fareed Zakaria wrote a lot about this in The Future of
Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.

[A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]

~~~
anigbrowl
This shouldn't be downvoted just because it's disagreed with: it's a cogent
and well-sourced argument, which should be met with a rebuttal rather than
silent disapproval.

------
wyck
Regardless of the current conundrum, this is akin to testing the waters,
without using the normal legal process. A global registrar that controls
address's with very little "real" insight by any citizens or international
community? Sounds like a problem that has been waiting to happen for a long
time now, this decision was no mistake.

At first I was angered, but then I realized this is a good thing, they are
shooting themselves in the foot. We don't need ICANN at all, there are already
alternative DNS systems out there waiting for an opportunity for a mass
exodus..

They do not control the internet and they will find that out very fast if they
feel like making this common place.

ps. I wrote this after reading another post about a godaddy site that was
"supposedly" on this and blamed on ICAAN. I had not read the about the
homeland security warrant.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
what are the alternative DNS systems?

~~~
kgo
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root>

------
jrockway
Weird political rant at the end there. Nobody at ICE has even said that they
are responsible for this; it could be a rogue employee at ICANN for all we
know. Eventually someone will have to answer for this, and the answer might
result in trouble for ICE.

The body scanners and patdowns are similar; while they are in use right now,
it's far from certain that they will exist forever. There is just too much
backlash.

So I wouldn't say that we are a police state yet. Some renegades have made
decisions, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. Sometimes it looks like
nothing is being done, but that's just because the machinery of the government
is slow.

Hell, 19 prominent senators couldn't even get their "censor the Internet" bill
through Congress, even though they really wanted it. The system works!

~~~
zabraxias
The body scanners are supported 81% by one poll and 65% by another. For what
it's worth it seems fear mongering has worked wonders.

Want to disagree with me? I'll call you unpatriotic.

~~~
jrockway
_The body scanners are supported 81% by one poll and 65% by another._

Among people who have never set foot in an airport.

------
joe_the_user
If the US government becomes the agent of whoever has money and claims
intellectual property, there really is no limit to how far this can go.

All any company-with-influence has to do is patent some things, put a claim
against a competitor and shut them down long to put them out of business. It's
not just that it lets companies dominate industries. It is that it makes such
domination _more profitable than anything else_ \- thereby sucking up all
available investment funds. What would _you_ invest once the state start
"picking winners".

It's really the same old story - corruption destroys enterprise.

------
sukuriant
My question is: "What do we do now?"

------
trotsky
End to end DNSSEC deployment would prevent an attack like this once clients
are rejecting any unsigned records. At least in addition to the root name
servers the seizing party would need to convince the TLD maintainer and the
customer's registrar to sign the new zone files.

All the more reason for you to sign your current zones (including .org, .info,
.us and .eu) or pressure your registrar and TLD maintainers to implement
DNSSEC yesterday.

------
cies
in the ny times:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1)

link to the official announcement on youtube:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGziXOPO2A>

what i find most disturbing is not the action against IP infringement on US
territory. what i find disturbing is:

1) the announcement that "suspected criminals would be pursued anywhere in the
world." They say "American business is under assault from counterfeiters and
pirates", sure this is true, but why should the US care that this happens
outside of their country?

2) the freedom of a modern democracy is completely underminded by this
measure. one should be innocent until proven guitly (by a court case -- in
this case there was no trial), and secondly one has the right to free speach.
both of these rights have been compromised by the measure. this --in my
opinion-- voids the moral supriority of a modern democracy, and puts the US on
a list of countries that cannot guarantee basic freedom for its citizens (like
China).

------
Rabidgremlin
As a bit of a though exercise, I just invented the 4LW 'protocol' for
remembering the IP addresses of seized sites:
[http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-
wo...](http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-words/) :)

------
ck2
It's just big government rubbing the back of big industry, nothing new, just
the format has changed.

It's all about money and who has the biggest lobbyists.

Also remember that making lots of laws and then enforcement is a big income
generator for government on all levels.

------
aik
I imagine part of the reason for them choosing these sites was simply to test
the public reaction. I'm sure there are thousands of other "shady" sites out
there that they could've chosen in addition to these.

------
jdp23
a couple of questions to those who are complaining about too many political
stories here -- and i'm not being disingenuous , i really want to to know.

\- do you see this as a political story? why or why not?

\- some people here may be considering starting businesses where some of user-
provided content they host might fall afoul of this policy. do you think this
story meets the bar of being interest to the HN community?

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
Political is a vague term. I do not think anyone really knows or can define it
without some decade long argument and a final consensus.

That the government can decide who is guilty however is not a matter of
politics, but, fundamental principles.

As to your second question, this is something which effects some of the HN
community, whether genuine original content producers or otherwise. Thus, I do
think it is news related to technology of a relatively new nature, thus, I
would say, yes it is or has the potential to be of interest to the HN
community.

------
makmanalp
I wonder what the EFF's position on this will be.

------
adammichaelc
Due process & a trial by jury, anyone?

------
patrickgzill
Camel's nose is now under the tent...

------
jaekwon
how about a website that tracks these censorship activities

------
NginUS
I'm shocked, and awed.

