Export thread

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act bill was introduced to Congress last week. It is a proposal to allow the US Government to force ISPs to block any website they choose, in a manner similar to Iran and China. I find it abominable that a country that supposedly stands for Freedom of Speech would have members of it's own government actually suggest that censoring the single most powerful information tool ever created is somehow in the benefit of it's people, especially in a manner that is so rife for abuse.

I hope you will all join me in letting our representatives know that the Internet must remain free. Call your Senators. Let them know that we won't stand for this.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ....

Oh, an internet petition. That'll show 'em.

I encourage everyone to skip the petition and call your representatives directly. It's unfathomable that this sort of law would be acceptable.

Tress said:

Oh, an internet petition. That'll show 'em.

I encourage everyone to skip the petition and call your representatives directly. It's unfathomable that this sort of law would be acceptable.

Click to expand...

This too. This is an especially good time as well, with an election looming overhead.

I would actually call your representative directly, as well.

Congress.org - : Capitol Hill Basics

Edit: DOH!

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

FYI to folks, this appears to be a Senate bill (dunno if there is a House portion), so call your Senator's office first.

12 of the 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are sponsors or co-sponsors of the bill. No matter what we do this is going for a vote.

Don't bother signing the online petition. Call your reps and tell them not to vote for it if you don't want it.

Text of the bill.

It would likely shut down YouTube.

sixpackshaker said:

It would likely shut down YouTube.

Click to expand...

This would shut down a whole lot more than Youtube. Basically every free file hosting, image hosting, video hosting, or live streaming site on the Internet would disappear virtually overnight.

AshburnerX;441224][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

It would likely shut down YouTube.

Click to expand...

This would shut down a whole lot more than Youtube. Basically every free file hosting, image hosting, video hosting, or live streaming site on the Internet would disappear virtually overnight.[/QUOTE]

And that is a bad thing?

Clearly it is long past time for us to surround Washington DC, build a 50 foot wall around it, and burn it to the ground with all the politicians still trapped inside.

sixpackshaker;441226][QUOTE=AshburnerX;441224][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:

It would likely shut down YouTube.

Click to expand...

This would shut down a whole lot more than Youtube. Basically every free file hosting, image hosting, video hosting, or live streaming site on the Internet would disappear virtually overnight.[/QUOTE]

And that is a bad thing?[/QUOTE]

As an extreme example, if someone posts unlicensed Getty images on their flickr account, this legislation would allow Getty to call the DoJ (not the FCC, interestingly enough), and have them tell the telecoms to block the DNS requests for every flickr server without legal review.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

oh wait, were you being facetious? My detecto-meter is broken today.

Upon closer inspection, I found out one of my state's senators is a co-sponsor. I just sent a letter to her office asking her to reconsider. Hopefully I won't be the only one.

I have to say, it's remarkably easy to contact your representatives these days. If you feel strongly about this bill, you really should call and/or write in.

I don't feel like I'm part of this state or that these individuals even represent me, but I'll write them anyway. Can't believe these idiots want to turn this into China. Are any of them aware that the constitution still exists, or did they assume we'd grown past that?

america fuck yeah?

mr_thehun;441295][QUOTE=escushion said:

I don't feel like I'm part of this state or that these individuals even represent me, but I'll write them anyway. Can't believe these idiots want to turn this into China. Are any of them aware that the constitution still exists, or did they assume we'd grown past that?

Click to expand...

No, this bill would make it worse than the law China, that is quickly being dismantled.

---------- Post added at 03:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 AM ----------

Seriously, why does it seem that as Chinese gains more freedoms, Americans are more than willing to throw theirs away.[/QUOTE]

Because for the vast majority of americans, freedom means the freedom to pick which restaurant they eat in, and which reality TV show they watch in the evening. Beyond that, they couldn't give a teeny tiny rat's hiney. Especially if it involves any kind of personal responsibility. The wake up call from this is going to be nasty, because we keep slapping the snooze button, and the longer we put it off, the nastier it is going to get.

In that case, the majority of Americans would find their freedom rather unrestricted in China, if not more "free" than in the US.

Terrik said:

In that case, the majority of Americans would find their freedom rather unrestricted in China, if not more "free" than in the US.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt. So very many of my countrymen long for this freedom, freedom from having to shoulder any of the burdens of choice, responsibility, and the consequences thereof. And so very many of our politicians are so very, very eager to grant us all that freedom. The world is big and scary and we can't be reasonably expected to take care of ourselves!

It looks like there are Conservatives and Liberals sponsoring this. Bipartisan bills are a good thing??? WTF. I'm really surprised to see the who is working together in this. I know who I am not voting for this fall.

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

GasBandit;441362][QUOTE=Terrik said:

In that case, the majority of Americans would find their freedom rather unrestricted in China, if not more "free" than in the US.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt. So very many of my countrymen long for this freedom, freedom from having to shoulder any of the burdens of choice, responsibility, and the consequences thereof. And so very many of our politicians are so very, very eager to grant us all that freedom. The world is big and scary and we can't be reasonably expected to take care of ourselves![/QUOTE]

Sadly, as long as the people in the U.S. have cable t.v. and internet, they could care less about the erosion and trampling of the Constitution.

drawn_inward said:

It looks like there are Conservatives and Liberals sponsoring this. Bipartisan bills are a good thing??? WTF. I'm really surprised to see the who is working together in this. I know who I am not voting for this fall.

Click to expand...

If there's one thing republicans and democrats can agree on, it's that the federal government needs more power to tell you what you can and can't do. They just disagree about the particulars.

Well the people that hold copyrights have more money and power than the "Pirate Bays" of the world.

GasBandit;441368][QUOTE=drawn_inward said:

It looks like there are Conservatives and Liberals sponsoring this. Bipartisan bills are a good thing??? WTF. I'm really surprised to see the who is working together in this. I know who I am not voting for this fall.

Click to expand...

If there's one thing republicans and democrats can agree on, it's that the federal government needs more power to tell you what you can and can't do. They just disagree about the particulars.[/QUOTE]

Yup, yup, and yup.

I'm ashamed but not at all surprised that one of my esteemed nutjobs, er senator I mean, is, I believe a co-author on this bill.

The thing is, I don't deny that it's a good cause. Copyright SHOULD be protected and piracy SHOULD be opposed. But this bill is all wrong. It's such a clumsy, heavy-handed way to go about it. I think these politicians just got caught up in trying to stop piracy and didn't think about the real consequences.

GasBandit;441368][QUOTE=drawn_inward said:

It looks like there are Conservatives and Liberals sponsoring this. Bipartisan bills are a good thing??? WTF. I'm really surprised to see the who is working together in this. I know who I am not voting for this fall.

Click to expand...

If there's one thing republicans and democrats can agree on, it's that the federal government needs more power to tell you what you can and can't do. They just disagree about the particulars.[/QUOTE]

heh, start blocking Facebook and twitter (it "could" promote piracy via pages and stuff) and people will riots!! riot!!

or maybe someday the government will block WoW cause it promote violence between the races.

In all honesty, if this passes the House and Senate, I expect it to be vetoed in the White House. Obama is looking at re-election in 2 years and he certainly doesn't want to be known as the President that killed the Internet in the US, especially considering how his biggest demographic is/was the college age adult.

The only real question is whether or not they will get the numbers needed to pass it through regardless.

On a related note, Congress punts Net Neutrality back to the FCC again.

I'm really glad they are focusing on these sorts of things instead of, oh, say, PASSING A BUDGET.

Espy said:

I'm really glad they are focusing on these sorts of things instead of, oh, say, PASSING A BUDGET.

Click to expand...

There's no way we'll see a budget before the elections.

Of course not. God forbid people actually stand for something.

I am honestly at the point where I don't know if I can vote for anyone anymore. This is looking like the first election that I won't be voting in because I can't choose between crazy, crazy and dumb as shit.

Tress said:

The thing is, I don't deny that it's a good cause. Copyright SHOULD be protected and piracy SHOULD be opposed. But this bill is all wrong. It's such a clumsy, heavy-handed way to go about it. I think these politicians just got caught up in trying to stop piracy and didn't think about the real consequences.

Click to expand...

I would liken it to trying to cure an ingrown toenail by removing your foot. Strictly speaking, the toe will no longer hurt but a little more time and effort could have lead to a better solution.

You know, this is a pretty dumb bill. The way it proposes blocking websites is by having DNS servers not return queries for certain websites. This can be defeated with a modified hosts file.

A waste of funds, time, and it doesn't even work!

fucking Arlen Spector....

JONJONAUG said:

You know, this is a pretty dumb bill. The way it proposes blocking websites is by having DNS servers not return queries for certain websites. This can be defeated with a modified hosts file.

A waste of funds, time, and it doesn't even work!

Click to expand...

Maybe instead, they should consult the ghost of Ted Stevens on exactly what size wrench they need to close the valve on the series of tubes.

After they get the information from their Ouija board, they'll pull that wrench out of a Spector's ass.

I swear to God, politics just piss me off anymore. All these fuckers really ever care about is remaining incumbent in their current position; they care nothing for and about the people they're supposed to represent. Half of these Senators are the stupidest sons of bitches that have ever graced the Earth; they sit around making bone-headed decisions like this current bill because they're too dumb to actually run the country.

It seems as if this was delayed...for now:

Victory: Internet Censorship Bill is Delayed, For Now | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Still, keep those representative numbers handy, the battle isn't over yet, not by a longshot.

Maybe I am just being generous, but I'm not sure this is such an 'omg' thing as yall are saying. For a site to be shut down it would have to be:

bill said:

‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

Click to expand...

There are a ton of get out of jail free cards there. The Flikr example listed before wouldn't get hit by this, because:

1) It doesn't market copyrighted material. The bill doesn't say 'anyone who has copyrighted materials on their site will be shut down', the site has to MARKET those materials. So it doesn't meet subsection A.i or A.ii, although I could see someone trying a court case over this. I can't see how they would win in the Flikr example.

2) More importantly, the example is completely outside of subsection B.

Flikr, Youtube, and all sorts of sites would not be affected by this. And they aren't the problem. They are willing to remove copyrighted materials when they appear.

So, what kind of sites would be hit by this? The old Pirate Bay sure would have, as would hundreds of other torrent farms. And let me be the first to say, who gives a shit? Those sites really NEED to be shut down. They are a plague on the IP world.

If your argument against this is 'zomg they're going to shut down the torrent farms!' then please get on the Grow Up Bus. You will never win that argument anywhere other than on a college campus or on the internet. In the real world, people don't put on drunk glasses before looking at the line where theft is.

--------------

But ok....I mean....this could be abused. There needs to be a window of time from when the site gets the injunction before it gets shut down, and there needs to be a clear message left on a censored site saying "hey! this site was shut down by your local Justice Department, and here's why:" followed by an explanation of why it was shut down.

I dunno....maybe I am off on this. I just absolutely hate torrent sites and would like to see them quashed. Except for the prwn ones of course.

Necronic said:

But ok....I mean....this could be abused. There needs to be a window of time from when the site gets the injunction before it gets shut down, and there needs to be a clear message left on a censored site saying "hey! this site was shut down by your local Justice Department, and here's why:" followed by an explanation of why it was shut down.

I dunno....maybe I am off on this. I just absolutely hate torrent sites and would like to see them quashed. Except for the prwn ones of course.

Click to expand...

Here's a good article about why this is a bad bill. It's not just about a bunch of people who want to protect their ability to pirate.

Necronic said:

1) It doesn't market copyrighted material. The bill doesn't say 'anyone who has copyrighted materials on their site will be shut down', the site has to MARKET those materials.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You missed the first part in the nest of clauses, 'cause it's written like crap.

primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, [STRIKE]or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator,[/STRIKE] to offer

Click to expand...

So any site whose "use" as determined by the DoJ, is to offer A.i or A.ii type goods and services. They added the marketing clause to get around sites that have a different stated use versus their actual use (in their estimation). And once you add this part, B falls into place as well.

So Flickr and Youtube apply, at least as far as being able to use this law to block access.

The problem is specificity, and the general failure of US copyright law to catch up to digital distribution. This bill is kind of like bandaging a gushing wound with small dirty rag. Not only will it not really stop the gushing, you'll probably get infected as well.

Wait, I'm reading that different for you. The way I am reading that is "has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than,...copyright infringement, meaning that the site has no demonstrable use other than for copyright infringement. That doesn't hold true for either sight.

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

Necronic said:

That doesn't hold true for either sight.

Click to expand...

Only in your estimation. Under that bill, the DoJ is the sole arbiter of whether that it true or not, and the burden of proof that it isn't lies with the site owners. That's the problem.

---------- Post added at 02:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 AM ----------

AshburnerX said:

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

Click to expand...

Bingo. It will take more than a few pages from the pen of Patrick Leahy to fix our copyright system.

AshburnerX said:

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

Click to expand...

I think that's a sign that we aren't lawyers.

Necronic;443583][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:

I think the fact that it's confusing and can be interpreted ether way is a bad sign in ether case.

Click to expand...

I think that's a sign that we aren't lawyers.[/QUOTE]

That too.

It took almost a month, but I finally got a response to my email where I expressed concerns about the bill. Here's what Sen. Feinstein (or at least a member of her staff) has to say in response:

Dear Mr. ******:

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.

America's copyright industry is one of our most important economic engines, and giving artists and inventors the incentive to produce cutting edge works is vital to the country. The protection of intellectual property is particularly important to California, which is home to thriving film, music, and high-technology industries. I am strongly opposed to theft of copyrighted works, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated.

On September 20, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (S. 3804), of which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation is carefully crafted to address the growing problem of online piracy and copyright infringement, and would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down websites which are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are sites that, in the bill's language, are "primarily designed or have no demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use other than..." selling infringing or counterfeit goods.

Please know that I have been working with California high-technology businesses and Senator Leahy to improve the bill's language and address the concerns of legitimate high-tech businesses, public interest groups, and others. This legislation is currently awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my staff in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Click to expand...

Does this response elicit any particular response from you guys? I was pleased I got a response and somewhat surprised by the fact it wasn't a off-topic generic response. While I'm glad she's "working" with the author of the bill on cleaning up the language, I'm not particularly optimistic about the outcome.

Thoughts?

Legislation involving the Internet and computers should be required to be Turing complete.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

Tress said:

Does this response elicit any particular response from you guys? I was pleased I got a response and somewhat surprised by the fact it wasn't a off-topic generic response. While I'm glad she's "working" with the author of the bill on cleaning up the language, I'm not particularly optimistic about the outcome.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I'd ask if she could give five examples of sites that might qualify to be blacked out and five examples of sites that would not qualify. Then again I questions the ability of lawmakers to even know how to turn on a computer so there you go.

Uh, that sounded as generic as possible, gently telling you "COICA is a good bill, and only bad people will have to worry about it."

Yeah, Tress, that sounds pretty generic. It's a longer version of what I got back from Frank Lautenberg in NJ:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (S. 3804) would give the Department of Justice (DOJ) additional authority to track and shut down websites that provide access to unauthorized downloads, streaming or sale of copyrighted content, and counterfeit goods. It would also authorize the DOJ to file a civil suit against a website and seek a preliminary court order that the website is being used to traffic infringing material, provided that the DOJ publish prompt notice of the suit. In addition, this bill includes procedural safeguards that would allow the website owner or operator to petition the court to lift the order.

This legislation was introduced in the Senate in September 2010 and is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or similar legislation be considered in the full Senate.

Thank you again for contacting me.

FRL: mts

Click to expand...

Let me clarify. I was worried I would get something more like "Thank you citizen for expressing your viewpoints. I will consider you input in future decisions." The fact that it even mentioned COICA was more than I expected.

Never contacted a representative before?

They have to at least pretend to care, but I will tell you, your reply letter was likely typed by a secretary who was instructed to respond to all messages concerning the bill with the same thing. There are likely other template letters for other bills.

It was pretty generic and didn't really explain anything. I like Covar's idea.

escushion said:

It was pretty generic and didn't really explain anything. I like Covar's idea.

Click to expand...

Oh hell yes. You get that and I will paypal you enough money to buy a used videogame.

escushion said:

Never contacted a representative before?

Click to expand...

Actually, I have before. Want to know what I got?

"Thank you ______ for expressing your viewpoints. I will consider you input in future decisions."

That's why I was expecting more of the same. Sadly, this is an improvement for me.

Tress;448871][QUOTE=escushion said:

Never contacted a representative before?

Click to expand...

Actually, I have before. Want to know what I got?

"Thank you ______ for expressing your viewpoints. I will consider you input in future decisions."

That's why I was expecting more of the same. Sadly, this is an improvement for me. [/QUOTE]

Ironically, that means you probably actually got read by the actual representative. That's all they have time to type in reply.

When we get these big long winded blatherscyte, that means our mail was fielded, read, and replied to by a staffer/intern.

I for one love legislation that's meant to stop people that are already breaking the law from breaking the law... especially when it always seem to try to do it by some vague method that hurts the law abiding more.

@Li3n said:

I for one love legislation that's meant to stop people that are already breaking the law from breaking the law... especially when it always seem to try to do it by some vague method that hurts the law abiding more.

Click to expand...

Like gun control?

(can't help myself!)

BADUM-TISH!

GasBandit;449177][QUOTE=@Li3n said:

I for one love legislation that's meant to stop people that are already breaking the law from breaking the law... especially when it always seem to try to do it by some vague method that hurts the law abiding more.

Click to expand...

Like gun control?

(can't help myself!)[/QUOTE]

When they use the excuse that it's to keep them from the hands of criminals, yeah...


Crazy people getting guns at Wallmart is another thing...


And people buying them in bulk and selling them to mexican drug cartels is another too (because laws should already exist that allow law enforcement to arrest people that do that).

I'd like you to give examples of these "crazy people buying guns at walmart." I suspect it's a baseless and fallacious appeal to emotion. I also suspect you haven't actually ever tried to buy a gun in your life. It is, actually, a teensy bit more complicated than ordering a cheeseburger, despite what alarmist rhetoric has led some to believe.

Nah, that was a dig at the fact that Walmart sells ammo, but not M rated games...

And what you are referring to as a "teensy bit more complicated" is gun control...

has the internet jaded you so much that when someone responds to a humorous jab of yours with another jab you assume they must be 100% serious?!

Wal-Mart sells M rated games... rly:

Whatever the rating was they didn't... never bothered with learning the rating thing... if i even have a kid i'll just find out what's in the game myself 10x.

@Li3n said:

Nah, that was a dig at the fact that Walmart sells ammo, but not M rated games...

And what you are referring to as a "teensy bit more complicated" is gun control...

has the internet jaded you so much that when someone responds to a humorous jab of yours with another jab you assume they must be 100% serious?!

Click to expand...

It wasn't a joke. It was a fallacious exaggeration to advance a political viewpoint. You're sure backpedalling a lot lately.

well... BBC reports that the Ministry approved the idea of two tier internet...
BBC News - Minister Ed Vaizey backs 'two-speed' internet

Hopefully this stays an idea cause if two tier DOES exist, it makes it easier to control. (that is why I attach to this thread. It kinda relate)

@Li3n said:

Whatever the rating was they didn't... never bothered with learning the rating thing... if i even have a kid i'll just find out what's in the game myself 10x.

Click to expand...

You mean AO, aka Porno games? yea, imagine that.

Yeah, the sell ammo but not porno. What's your point?

The more you tighten your grip, USA, the more internet systems will slip through your fingers

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

The more you tighten your grip, USA, the more internet systems will slip through your fingers

Click to expand...

Not after we demonstrate the power of this bill.

You know, I just had a thought... is there a way to sniff the "real" ip address of a machine on a VPN? I never considered it before, but...

GasBandit said:

You know, I just had a thought... is there a way to sniff the "real" ip address of a machine on a VPN? I never considered it before, but...

Click to expand...

for unencrypted VPN connections, sure. Most VPN connections are encrypted though, so you have to break some form of secure encryption to get that information - but would it really be useful? VPNs usually use their own IP scheme inside one of the lan blocks (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, etc).

But you are on the right track. The internet was designed and built to route around failure, and this would be an example of failure. The people who are interested in getting illegal materials will merely be inconvenienced, while many others doing normal work will end up with severe difficulties because some company was able to convince the AG that their site infringes.

Exactly. Pirate Bay can simply be connected to by VPN through a relocatable proxy that changes as fast as they can shut it down, whereas LegitSmallCorp LLC will be massively at a disadvantage in selling widgets compared to SuperUberCorp Inc.

There are only two aspects I don't like about the bill:

The AG alone can declare someone guilty, not a judge, jury, no trial. Just one person who is not exactly fair and impartial.

Blocking things on the internet generally, although if we could get rid of the above issue, this wouldn't be so bad. We already block counterfeit products at ports and so forth, so doing so digitally isn't as bad as people think it is.

All this, of course, with a heaping helping of reality that says it really won't work, and will damage the internet, but there is some value in protecting copyright.

I just think it should be more a civil matter than a criminal one.

GasBandit said:

Exactly. Pirate Bay can simply be connected to by VPN through a relocatable proxy that changes as fast as they can shut it down, whereas LegitSmallCorp LLC will be massively at a disadvantage in selling widgets compared to SuperUberCorp Inc.

Click to expand...

I absolutely loath it when people say "the criminals will get them anyways" UNLESS someone makes a real argument for why. This is the best argument I have heard for why NOT to implement this bill.

Would this be easy for not tech savy people to do?

Necronic;453677][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Exactly. Pirate Bay can simply be connected to by VPN through a relocatable proxy that changes as fast as they can shut it down, whereas LegitSmallCorp LLC will be massively at a disadvantage in selling widgets compared to SuperUberCorp Inc.

Click to expand...

I absolutely loath it when people say "the criminals will get them anyways" UNLESS someone makes a real argument for why. This is the best argument I have heard for why NOT to implement this bill.

Would this be easy for not tech savy people to do?[/QUOTE]

It'd be very easy to distribute a one-click-and-done VPN client you could install to connect.

would you have to re install it any time they moved the proxy? Or could the installer be used to track and shut down the proxy?

Necronic said:

would you have to re install it any time they moved the proxy? Or could the installer be used to track and shut down the proxy?

Click to expand...

There's a number of ways it could be handled. probably the hardest/most lawman-resistant would just be to have a field on the VPN client to enter the proxy's ip address, and whenever it changes just disseminate the new address via social media. How much easier it gets than that depends on how forceful the blacklist is.. IE, if it disrupts DNS resolution or not.

Necronic said:

would you have to re install it any time they moved the proxy? Or could the installer be used to track and shut down the proxy?

Click to expand...

The thing is, even if they shut down the proxy, someone else could just set up another one and then the game begins again. Servers are relatively cheap... at least when compared to the price of sending cops somewhere to unplug it.

mr_thehun said:

thats when it becomes illegal to have a private server.

Click to expand...

That'll never happen... many companies host their own websites on servers they own, on site. Many of them huge businesses that are trying to control their own assets. Even if it WAS made illegal, those servers aren't just going disappear.

AshburnerX;453777][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:

thats when it becomes illegal to have a private server.

Click to expand...

That'll never happen... many companies host their own websites on servers they own, on site. Many of them huge businesses that are trying to control their own assets. Even if it WAS made illegal, those servers aren't just going disappear.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, no way are any of the telecoms, Google/Microsoft, Big Oil, banks, manufacturers, or investment trading firms going to allow legislators to make private servers illegal. Hell, the SEC would probably throw a shit fit because there's no way they would want to be responsible for policing other company's files on a 24/7/365 basis.

SpecialKO;453797][QUOTE=AshburnerX;453777][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:

thats when it becomes illegal to have a private server.

Click to expand...

That'll never happen... many companies host their own websites on servers they own, on site. Many of them huge businesses that are trying to control their own assets. Even if it WAS made illegal, those servers aren't just going disappear.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, no way are any of the telecoms, Google/Microsoft, Big Oil, banks, manufacturers, or investment trading firms going to allow legislators to make private servers illegal. Hell, the SEC would probably throw a shit fit because there's no way they would want to be responsible for policing other company's files on a 24/7/365 basis.[/QUOTE]

Forgive Mr. Thehun, he's talking about China.

Looks like a co-founder of Priate Bay is working on a new decentralized DNS system. It will be interesting to see if they can pull it off.http://www.osnews.com/story/24079/Sunde_To_Launch_Open_Distributed_Alternative_to_ICANN

Shakey said:

Looks like a co-founder of Priate Bay is working on a new decentralized DNS system. It will be interesting to see if they can pull it off.

Click to expand...

Ho ho hooooo boy. Decentralized DNS? I know I'm a Libertarian kook and all that, but even THAT sounds a little too close to potential ANARCHY. Ha ha... but it may be what is necessary. I just don't envy the DcDNS hax0rwarz over who gets www.sex.com.