Congress wants to destroy the Internet

[Eulogy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8 ... NP3QwvLCW#

In short, Regress wants to enact censorship like what China, Iran and Syria uses. The US having China-style censorship will take down a ton of sites, including this one; copyright infirngemnet is the excuse.

Welcome to Prohibition 2.0.

[Phantasee]

This is some fucked up shit. It's pretty frustrating that movements like OWS doesn't seem to get through to Congress. It's almost like they don't think the people in the OWS movement are their constituents...

[Solauren]

Since SD.NET is a Canadian website, I don't think it will have alot of effect.

Sucks to be our American members, however.

[Sriad]

We do have quite a few Americans here though...

Anyway, if you are and you haven't, call (or write) your representative and tell them what a shitty idea it is. They need to hear it from their constituents, because they aren't going to hear it much from their lobbyists.

On the bright side it won't move out of committee until late January at earliest, so there's a bit of time to spread the word around.

I'm pleased that (under Colorado's new districting map) my representative is one of those on that committee speaking opposing the bill, and will definitely let him (or at least his staffers) know.

[evilsoup]

I can't watch youtube videos over this connection, does anyone have a link to an article? Or can someone summarise what it's about?

[Grumman]

I can't watch youtube videos over this connection, does anyone have a link to an article? Or can someone summarise what it's about?

Here's the relevant wikipedia page.

Long story short, it's basically a "War on IP Infringement" - taking a heavy-handed approach to a problem, in a way where the cure is worse than the disease.

As I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of the first things it would be used for is to completely smother WikiLeaks - after all, they're distributing documents that they do not own the rights to distribute. That makes them fair game.

[D.Turtle]

Here is an article from arstechnica on the lastest developments:

Stop Online Piracy Act vote delayed


The House Judiciary Committee considering whether to send the Stop Online Piracy Act to the House floor abruptly adjourned Friday with no new vote date set—a surprise given that the bill looked certain to pass out of committee today.

The committee's chairman and chief sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), agreed to further explore a controversial provision that lets the Attorney General order changes to core internet infrastructure in order to stop copyright infringement.

Smith said the hearing would resume at the "earliest practical day that Congress is in session." Hours later, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) tweeted that the committee would resume action Wednesday.

The abrupt halt to Friday's proceeding, which followed a marathon-long, 11-hour hearing Thursday, was based on a motion from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). He urged Smith to postpone the session until technical experts could be brought in to testify whether altering the internet's domain-naming system to fight websites deemed "dedicated" to infringing activity would create security risks.

Just yesterday, Smith said that was not necessary, despite a signed letter by many of the internet's core engineers saying the bill's approach was technically flawed.

The legislation mandates that ISPs alter records in the net's system for looking up website names, known as DNS, so that users couldn't navigate to the site. Or, if ISPs choose not to introduce false information into DNS at the urging of the Justice Department, they instead would be required to employ some other method, such as deep-packet inspection, to prevent American citizens from visiting infringing sites.

ISPs, could, for instance, adopt tactics used by the Great Chinese Firewall to sniff for traffic going to a blacklisted site and simply block it.

But a host of security researchers and tech policy experts, including Stewart Baker, the former Department of Homeland Security policy director, said the plan "would still do great damage to internet security."

On Thursday, Chaffetz and a host of other lawmakers asked Smith to stop the hearing so that the committee could bring in experts to testify. But Smith had refused, and the committee voted 22-12 to leave the DNS redirect and firewall provisions intact.

The committee heard from the Motion Picture Industry Association of America at a SOPA hearing last month, but has never called an expert on internet architecture. It was not immediately clear who Smith would ultimately line up.

Michael O'Leary, an MPAA vice president, had testified last month before the committee that security concerns were "overstated."

Putting false information into the DNS system—the equivalent of the net’s phonebook—would be ineffective, frustrate security initiatives and lead to software workarounds, according to a paper co-signed by security experts Steve Crocker of Shinkuro, David Dagon of Georgia Tech, Dan Kaminsky of DKH, Danny McPherson of Verisign and Paul Vixie of Internet Systems Consortium. The paper was lodged into the committee's record on Thursday.

"These actions would threaten the Domain Name System’s ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the internet’s value as a single, unified, global communications network," they wrote.

Also lodged into the record was an open letter from 83 prominent internet engineers, including Vint Cert, John Gilmore and L. Jean Camp.

"The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry," they wrote.

In the security context, they maintain the bill would break the internet's universal character and hamper US government-supported efforts to rollout out DNS-SEC, which is intended to prevent hackers from hijacking the net through fake DNS entries.

The measure, meanwhile, also grants private companies the ability to de-fund websites they allege to be trafficking in unauthorized copyright and trademark goods. Rights holders may ask judges to order ad networks and banks to stop doing business with a site dedicated to infringing activities.

The legislation also gives legal immunity to financial institutions and ad networks that choose to boycott the rogue sites even without having been ordered to do so.

Smith’s legislation targets sites with foreign domains, not American-based ones ending in .com, .org and .net.

[Vehrec]

Well, I've told my representative what I think of this-and if it passes, I've promised him that I'll either host something and turn myself over in protest, or leave the country.

So who's got a good city for US Expats?

[Number Theoretic]

I'm not very well informed about the technical implications of this bill but could using anonymizing networks like Tor or I2P be a way around it?

At least if you are just a normal user and don't host anything which could be bullied away by some big corporation who doesn't like your content. In that case your best option is to move your server abroad.

[Grumman]

At least if you are just a normal user and don't host anything which could be bullied away by some big corporation who doesn't like your content. In that case your best option is to move your server abroad.

I don't believe that would help - apparently part of this legislation would let them force your ISP to blacklist your website, meaning that even if it still exists, you cannot access it (assuming you're in the United States).

[evilsoup]

If I'm reading the wikipedia article correctly, this would 'only' affect US-based companies, right? There'd be nothing to prevent a company based in Britain or France or Germany from linking to one of these proscribed sites... which means that the net effect of this bill would be to drive all the big US-based web companies (google, facebook, etc.) into other countries. What a generous gesture to the rest of the world.

[Alyeska]

Since SD.NET is a Canadian website, I don't think it will have alot of effect.

Sucks to be our American members, however.

On a .Net domain. It can be forcefully redirected for US citizens.

[Alyeska]

If I'm reading the wikipedia article correctly, this would 'only' affect US-based companies, right? There'd be nothing to prevent a company based in Britain or France or Germany from linking to one of these proscribed sites... which means that the net effect of this bill would be to drive all the big US-based web companies (google, facebook, etc.) into other countries. What a generous gesture to the rest of the world.

If they use USA registered domains or do any business in the United States what so ever, they can be attacked. VISA can be forced to stop providing credit card processing for foreign companies thanks to SOPA.

[Simon_Jester]

I would think there would be large sectors of the corporate world opposed to this bill- the American Internet has a lot of traffic and activity going over it, and constructing the Great Firewall of America would block a lot of it.

What do Amazon and eBay and Google think of this?

[evilsoup]

Is it a matter of domain names? Would a .co.uk domain be immune to this stuff, or what? Because that sounds like a pretty easy workaround if that's the case.

[Alyeska]

I would think there would be large sectors of the corporate world opposed to this bill- the American Internet has a lot of traffic and activity going over it, and constructing the Great Firewall of America would block a lot of it.

What do Amazon and eBay and Google think of this?

The technology sector almost universally opposes this bill.

Congress has refused to hear any expert advice on the issue. 99% of the testimony has been from the big content companies. RIAA, MPAA, etc. They allowed a Google lawyer into a single hearing and the entire hearing was spent mocking the lawyer and claiming they supported piracy because they opposed SOPA on technology grounds.

[Alyeska]

Is it a matter of domain names? Would a .co.uk domain be immune to this stuff, or what? Because that sounds like a pretty easy workaround if that's the case.

Immune? Partially. Say the website is funded by VISA credit card processing and Paypal. This new law can be used to force VISA and Paypal to blacklist foreign websites.

The law is being designed to attack websites even if they are foreign. Cut off their revenue stream.

[Stark]

That's par for the course when implementing laws like this; when they laughably tried something similar in Australia, they went so far as to kick ISPs or other organistions that argued it was stupid out of the process entirely.

[evilsoup]

Ah, I see.
But then wouldn't the main effect be to drive Paypal abroad (possibly VISA, I don't know if that would be practical for them)?

[Solauren]

If they chase the Internet based companies out of the US, hey, that's a net gain for the rest of the world, especially Canada.

I mean, Facebook and Google already have satelite offices in Canada. It would be very simply to relocate there. Would also save their employees that transfer to the new locations effort on getting home for visits.

[Sriad]

I'm not very well informed about the technical implications of this bill but could using anonymizing networks like Tor or I2P be a way around it?

At least if you are just a normal user and don't host anything which could be bullied away by some big corporation who doesn't like your content. In that case your best option is to move your server abroad.

Short answer: yes.
Long answer: they sure could.

Rep. Jared Polis (my rep-to-be) explicitly told the committee as much: the bill wouldn't stop the piracy that it's SUPPOSED to be addressing, and would actually, via anonymized networks like TOR and I2P (which IIRC both have pretty respectable torrenting power at this point, definitely better than Napster could do 10 years ago) make pirates harder to catch. He also used one of his amendments (a clever bit of gamesmanship to specifically exclude pornography from the bill, which would have made it (more) unconstitutional if it had pasted, and whose defeat put Republicans in the awkward position of defending the porn industry) as an excuse to enter the complete lyrics of "The Internet is for Porn" from Avenue Q into the official record.

But anyway, I gotta give mad props to him, Zoe Lofgren, and a couple others who've introduced and separately debated hundreds of amendments that would cripple the bill. They're responsible for the multiple 10+ hour sessions and delays that might push any final votes into January or later, instead of cruising through in an afternoon.

[Terralthra]

Zoe Lofgren was my Rep for a while. I was proud of her. Mike Honda is also good. Pelosi is worthl2ss by comparison.

[Skgoa]

I'm not very well informed about the technical implications of this bill but could using anonymizing networks like Tor or I2P be a way around it?

Even easier: specify a DNS server outside the US or a private one. On the technical side, this is not even close to what countries like China or Iran do to censor the internet. This is more of a "the government can order telephone book printers to leave your number out in subsequent print runs" - nobody can actually stop you from calling the number. (yet) That's why this is going to be just as ineffective as it was in all the other countries that startet DNS censorship: Australia, Denmark...
As has been mentioned, what makes SOPA especially bad are the other unchecked legal powers it would grant.

edit: But to answer your actual question: Yes. Even a simple proxy server anywhere outside the US should do the trick nicely.
edit2: Actually, if the bill only included the DNS poisioning provisions, I would say "bring it on!" The over-reliance on the US and hardware in the US is one of the internet's greatest weaknesses. This would be a great incentive to decentralize critical infrastructure.

[Darksider]

That's par for the course when implementing laws like this; when they laughably tried something similar in Australia, they went so far as to kick ISPs or other organistions that argued it was stupid out of the process entirely.

What happened when they tried it over there? Did it pass?

Alyeska is right about the tech sector being almost universally opposed to this. I haven't seen one major tech company come out in favor of this bill, and literally every article I've read about it takes a negative view. I'm amazed that Reps have to pull shit like attaching bogus riders just to delay passing when the public response is entirely negative, or rather I would be if it wasn't being backed by RIAA and MPAA money. How likely is this POS to pass anyways?

[Chirios]

That's par for the course when implementing laws like this; when they laughably tried something similar in Australia, they went so far as to kick ISPs or other organistions that argued it was stupid out of the process entirely.

What happened when they tried it over there? Did it pass?

Alyeska is right about the tech sector being almost universally opposed to this. I haven't seen one major tech company come out in favor of this bill, and literally every article I've read about it takes a negative view. I'm amazed that Reps have to pull shit like attaching bogus riders just to delay passing when the public response is entirely negative, or rather I would be if it wasn't being backed by RIAA and MPAA money. How likely is this POS to pass anyways?

Yeah but that's the problem though isn't it, the public response isn't negative. The general public doesn't know about this bill nor does it particularly care, and the big entertainment corporations are funnelling lots of money to this bill to get it passed. Not to mention if you actually read transcripts of this debate, the politicians regularly dismiss computer programmers and internet security experts as "nerds" with statements like: "I'm not a nerd, but I don't understand how what the gentleman with the five years of college and twenty years of on the job experience is saying can possibly be true" [paraphrase]. So that means not only do they not have to fear the voters, they also get paid and don't feel any need to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.