Can I configure my router to use a DNS outside of the country in lieu of my ISP's DNS?Yeah, of course.
Homeland Security has been taking down domain names and attempting to strong-arm a takedown of the MafiaaFire plugin without a court order.Which is why lots of sites have stopped using ICANN controlled TLDs like com/net/org. c.f. demonoid.me rather then .com
If big players like Google are actually concerned about it they could do something as simple as turn youtube off for a day to show people what could effectively happen if this bill, and others like it, passes. It would certainly shine a big ole light on the discussion anyway.I wouldn't count on that. This law is our implementation of a treaty that was passed a while back. No doubt Google and others were involved in the negotiations at some point. The same way Google and Verizon hashed out an end to net neutrality and the FCC rubber stamped. Google, Apple, Microsoft and the telecom companies are much larger then the content industry. And they've reached saturation to a large extent. Assuming cynicism it would make sense for internet companies to lobby against efforts to curb piracy while the internet was still maturing, but now that 'were're here' and the only risk is an upstart it makes more sense for them to erect barriers to new competitors. Restrictive IP laws with loopholes for their services would work well.
21 (2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After beingSo essentially, an ISP will have to block infringing sites by limiting DNS, but it's not restricted to DNS. However,
22 served with a copy of an order pursuant to this sub-
23 section, the following shall apply:
24 (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—
1 (i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider
2 shall take technically feasible and reason-
3 able measures designed to prevent access
4 by its subscribers located within the
5 United States to the foreign infringing site
6 (or portion thereof) that is subject to the
7 order, including measures designed to pre-
8 vent the domain name of the foreign in-
9 fringing site (or portion thereof) from re-
10 solving to that domain name’s Internet
11 Protocol address.
16 (ii) LIMITATIONS.—A service providerThen there is another thing that says they don't need to block things that are already blocked.
17 shall not be required—
18 (I) other than as directed under
19 this subparagraph, to modify its net-
20 work, software, systems, or facilities;
21 (II) to take any measures with
22 respect to domain name resolutions
23 not performed by its own domain
24 name server; or
24 (A) IN GENERAL.—To ensure complianceSo essentially, it sounds you could interpret this as banning any alternative to the DNS system that can't be controlled by the government. Good times.
25 with orders issued pursuant to this section, the
1 Attorney General may bring an action for in-
2 junctive relief—
3 (i) against any entity served under
4 paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully
5 fails to comply with the requirements of
6 this subsection to compel such entity to
7 comply with such requirements; or
8 (ii) against any entity that knowingly
9 and willfully provides or offers to provide
10 a product or service designed or marketed
11 for the circumvention or bypassing of
12 measures described in paragraph (2)
...
(D) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this
12 paragraph, a product or service designed or
13 marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of
14 measures described in paragraph (2) and taken
15 in response to a court order issued pursuant to
16 this subsection includes a product or service
17 that is designed or marketed to enable a do-
18 main name described in such an order—
19 (i) to resolve to that domain name’s
20 Internet protocol address notwithstanding
21 the measures taken by a service provider
22 under paragraph (2) to prevent such reso-
23 lution; or
24 (ii) to resolve to a different domain
25 name or Internet Protocol address that the
1 provider of the product or service knows,
2 reasonably should know, or reasonably be-
3 lieves is used by an Internet site offering
4 substantially similar infringing activities as
5 those with which the infringing foreign
6 site, or portion thereof, subject to a court
7 order under this section was associated.
The ISP's don't want to regulate what their customers go to and will spend a lot of money to stop a bill that forces us to.Well, this bill explicitly does not require them to do that, as I quoted:
16 (ii) LIMITATIONS.—A service providerSo an ISP won't need to filter DNS traffic to other DNS servers, just remove entries from foreign infringing sites. This could easily be done by pulling from the ICANN root servers, which will probably be in compliance. For ccTLDs they could pull from a central US mirror that has any foreign infringing sites removed. It should just be a simple config file change.
17 shall not be required—
18 (I) other than as directed under
19 this subparagraph, to modify its net-
20 work, software, systems, or facilities;
21 (II) to take any measures with
22 respect to domain name resolutions
23 not performed by its own domain
24 name server
AT&T now says the game is up and I can start paying extra dough (and lose my grandfathered in "unlimited status") or never tether again. They claim they have a team of crack scientists and supercomputers that can tell if ever tether on my own again.So they're doing something on that front. Here's an article on AT&T lobbying for website blacklists:
Also, AT&T thinks that getting the US government into website blocking would be a pretty terrific idea. AT&T suggests that the Department of Justice "create and maintain a list of international websites known to host and traffic in infringed copyrighted works."This isn't some conspiracy, it's what they're saying publicly, they are spending money to lobby for this To claim it's not what they want is ridiculous.
After "thorough investigation and governmental due process," the Department of Justice could simply require ISPs to block all access to those sites.
« Older The Sad Odyssey of the F-22: America’s Big Broken ... | Alfred Hitchcock's Angry Birds... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The government and major commercial players are not going to give up on this power-grab until there is a law passed that prohibits what this law allows. There is overlap with the Net Neutrality and Occupy movements here.
posted by rhizome at 1:02 PM on October 27, 2011 [12 favorites]