What is your opinion of SOPA?

[Sadik B]

Sorry didn't mean owns, was not thinking straight, but ICANN is a US corporation as it is based/headquartered in the US.

Wrong again. ICANN is not a US corporation. It is a global non-profit organization with representatives from several countries. Secondly ICANN still has no technical or legal ability to seize domain names. That still remains and will always remain the prerogative of the domain name registrar.

After all, the internet was developed by DARPA, an agency of the US DoD. To the inventor belongs the spoils.

Wrong. The internet as we know today came into existence after the invention of the world wide web by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. What you are mistaking as the invention of today's "internet" is the communication network invented in 1968 when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) made contracts with BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) to create ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network).

 

[Taylor J]

Wrong again. ICANN is not a US corporation. It is a global non-profit organization with representatives from several countries. Secondly ICANN still has no technical or legal ability to seize domain names. That still remains and will always remain the prerogative of the domain name registrar.



Wrong. The internet as we know today came into existence after the invention of the world wide web by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. What you are mistaking as the invention of today's "internet" is the communication network invented in 1968 when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) made contracts with BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) to create ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network).

All companies have representatives from several countries, but ICANN is headquartered in the US.

 

[jmurrayhead]

Who cares where ICANN is and all that B.S. This is all that matters:

Internet can't and shouldn't be under control of a single government

 

[TrixieTang]

If you don't engage in illegal activities, you have nothing to fear.

Pretty much everyone breaks the law, the only thing that really matters is whether it's worth the government's time and money to try putting you behind bars.

Make it so they can play the role of Judge Dredd of the internet and it just means that they no longer have to go through the process of "convicting" you in order to do stuff like silencing your voice from the internet.

 

[Kevin]

The internet as we know today came into existence after the invention of the world wide web by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. What you are mistaking as the invention of today's "internet" is the communication network invented in 1968 when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) made contracts with BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) to create ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network).

And what you are mistaking is that the WWW is not "the internet" but rather sits on top of the internet as just another protocol of communications. Fred was absolutely correct in his statement. In today's environment some tend to think of "WWW" and "the internet" as being the same thing but they are most definitely not.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Wrong again. ICANN is not a US corporation. It is a global non-profit organization with representatives from several countries. Secondly ICANN still has no technical or legal ability to seize domain names. That still remains and will always remain the prerogative of the domain name registrar.



Wrong. The internet as we know today came into existence after the invention of the world wide web by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. What you are mistaking as the invention of today's "internet" is the communication network invented in 1968 when DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) made contracts with BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) to create ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network).

The internet exists separate from the world wide web. Email is a prime example of a internet app that does not require html. FTP, SSH, SAP, Oracle - all examples. I can use Oracle with any ODBC compliant client app, right?

Domain registrars are accredited by ICANN and can remove that accreditation.

Neither is it accurate to credit Berners Lee for the web. To be accurate, that would be American Ted Nelson, on whose work Berners Lee expanded and, to his credit, created as a standard.

On a related side topic, I wish the fish bit this well at Lake Fork. I must be using better bait here. Never fails to get an anti-American nibble when I use the ol' Red, White and Blue bait.

 

[iTuN3r]

The internet exists separate from the world wide web. Email is a prime example of a internet app that does not require html. FTP, SSH, SAP, Oracle - all examples. I can use Oracle with any ODBC compliant client app, right?

Domain registrars are accredited by ICANN and can remove that accreditation.

Neither is it accurate to credit Berners Lee for the web. To be accurate, that would be American Ted Nelson, on whose work Berners Lee expanded and, to his credit, created as a standard.

On a related side topic, I wish the fish bit this well at Lake Fork. I must be using better bait here. Never fails to get an anti-American nibble when I use the ol' Red, White and Blue bait.

Lol those fork fatties are way big

 

[Fred Sherman]

7lb 4oz (left) and 8lb 6oz (right)

A bad day of fishing beats a good day at work. And this was a good day of fishing! Thats beats damned near everything. Keep in mind, I'm the guy that picked up my wife and newborn daughter from the hospital with the bass boat attached, dropped them off at home and drove to a tournament. No lie.

 

[jasetaro]

Pretty much everyone breaks the law, the only thing that really matters is whether it's worth the government's time and money to try putting you behind bars.

Make it so they can play the role of Judge Dredd of the internet and it just means that they no longer have to go through the process of "convicting" you in order to do stuff like silencing your voice from the internet.

True, what most people don't realize is that the US Government now has its regulatory fingers in so many places, things the used to be called honest mistakes or accidents are now crimes.

When Congress enacted the first criminal code in 1790 there were less than 20 federal crimes* today there are over 4,500 most those have been enacted since 1970s when the federal regulatory monster started it's largely unrestrained growth. Many, if no most of those new crimes undermine the centuries old principle known as mens rea (Latin for a "guilty mind"). Essentially, in order to be guilty of crime you had to intentionally commit that crime -- meaning you had to act with a guilty mind.

Today things that used to be handled with a stern "Don't ever do that again" or civil fines are now crimes punishable by jail time. The case of Lawrence Lewis is prime example. And he's just one of the 788,517 people sentenced for federal crimes between 2000 and 2010.

The whole "If you don't engage in illegal activities, you have nothing to fear." argument is plain silly... The federal government has gotten so big and so activist it's becoming frighteningly easy to run afoul of the law without even intending to or realizing you have.

Technical aspects aside, anyone should oppose SOPA for the simple reason that the bigger the government gets the less liberty we have.

*The Constitution defines just three crime: treason, piracy and counterfeiting.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Except that SOPA is exactly the role the Framers had in mind for the federal government - tariffs and protection of trade. It falls squarely within the definition of the limited government as set out in the Constitution. It is, at its core, protection of trade and property through digital isolationism. It has no affect on individual liberties whatsoever.

 

[Forsaken]

Except that SOPA is exactly the role the Framers had in mind for the federal government - tariffs and protection of trade. It falls squarely within the definition of the limited government as set out in the Constitution. It is, at its core, protection of trade and property through digital isolationism. It has no affect on individual liberties whatsoever.

The issue is more the authority that it'll supply to the RIAA/MPAA, who have already abused every other system that is in place.

The main argument against the government passing this is that they do not understand anything having to do with the Internet, and do not understand any of the possible consequences of what this entails. Not only have many of the supporting politicians of SOPA/PIPA admitted to not understanding anything regarding the Internet, they think it is humorous and that they can pass the bills without bringing in experts.

Quite honestly, you might be one of the few IT professionals I know or have heard of that thinks this is even remotely a good idea.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Actually Namecheap offers a good set of hosting services and DreamHost offers good rates for registration with free WHOIS privacy. It is possible to do more than one thing well.

 

[Fred Sherman]

I think you'll mind a number of military and DoD IT professionals who see the value in this. Admitted, we have a different viewpoint since we're used to isolating our networks.

 

[Jason]

I do not believe that any DNS service can protect you 100% from DDoS.

You're absolutely right.

If someone is hell bent on launching a botnet attack against you, you're going to suffer. While some DDoS mitigation appliances work, it'll still drop legitimate traffic and some "bad" traffic will still hit your server(s). The only full proof protection is to black hole traffic / null route ips, in which case you cut off all access to the outside world. Bottom line, unless you have money to throw at over provisioning resources, you suffer (as do your users) and do the best you can and hope it's not prolonged and severe enough to cause your provider to see you as liability instead of a customer.

 

[AzzidReign]

You're absolutely right.

If someone is hell bent on launching a botnet attack against you, you're going to suffer. While some DDoS mitigation appliances work, it'll still drop legitimate traffic and some "bad" traffic will still hit your server(s). The only full proof protection is to black hole traffic / null route ips, in which case you cut off all access to the outside world. Bottom line, unless you have money to throw at over provisioning resources, you suffer (as do your users) and do the best you can and hope it's not prolonged and severe enough to cause your provider to see you as liability instead of a customer.

You do know that they attack just the DNS...right? Then there is the http/udp/syn/etc attacks that attacks the servers. Having a separate DNS has protected me even further from attacks, along side of having the best DDoS Protection on the internet (and I've tried all the big names for the most part).

 

[jmurrayhead]

I think you'll mind a number of military and DoD IT professionals who see the value in this. Admitted, we have a different viewpoint since we're used to isolating our networks.

I'll ask a few today and see what they have to say, just to get that perspective. I fall under that category, as well, and am against the bill so far.

 

[Fred Sherman]

What I would like is a method to completely isolate the US-based internet from the rest of the world. Something that could be implemented quickly and efficiently.

Contrary to the popular myth, the internet isn't a government free zone. It is a digital landscape with borders. There are border skirmishes taking place all the time, that you never hear about - acts of sabotage, spying, probing and digital terrorism - all politically or economically motivated. Like any other valuable, national asset, it needs to be protected and secured. There are new types of military units being stood up with that mission, things that were science fiction just a few years ago.

 

[Mert]

What I would like is a method to completely isolate the US-based internet from the rest of the world. Something that could be implemented quickly and efficiently.

Contrary to the popular myth, the internet isn't a government free zone. It is a digital landscape with borders. There are border skirmishes taking place all the time, that you never hear about - acts of sabotage, spying, probing and digital terrorism - all politically or economically motivated. Like any other valuable, national asset, it needs to be protected and secured. There are new types of military units being stood up with that mission, things that were science fiction just a few years ago.

And this clearly highlight what you are targeting. Sorry but it is clear you are not targeting world peace. New boundaries will only create more hospitality within world nations which will only threat world peace. If you really want to be innovative and you care about world peace , we should all start thinking a new world that is not ruled with multiple governments and extremely limited weapon production.

 

[mrGTB]

What I would like is a method to completely isolate the US-based internet from the rest of the world. Something that could be implemented quickly and efficiently.

Contrary to the popular myth, the internet isn't a government free zone. It is a digital landscape with borders. There are border skirmishes taking place all the time, that you never hear about - acts of sabotage, spying, probing and digital terrorism - all politically or economically motivated. Like any other valuable, national asset, it needs to be protected and secured. There are new types of military units being stood up with that mission, things that were science fiction just a few years ago.

I think when it boils down to the nitty-gritty of it all, they just want to have more control over the web in general for lots of reasons. Take away a lot of it's freedom over time that's made it great for using, start dictating what we can and can't do on it. No doubt later you'd then start seeing silly things like "Internet Taxes" being imposed on families and what not using it. Don't laugh either, that was talked about a few years ago, taxes being charged per household who use the web. I think they referred to it as a "computer tax".

 

[Fred Sherman]

And this clearly highlight what you are targeting. Sorry but it is clear you are not targeting world peace. New boundaries will only create more hospitality within world nations which will only threat world peace. If you really want to be innovative and you care about world peace , we should all start thinking a new world that is not ruled with multiple governments and extremely limited weapon production.

The reality is that world peace and a single government is never going to happen - at least not without a good bit of ethnic, religious and political genocide preceding it.

What government? Democratic? Parliamentarian? Benevolent dictator? Monarchy? Cleric?

What kind of legal system? Secular? Sharia? Innocent until proven guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? Who bears the burden of proof? Rules of evidence? Standard of proof - beyond a;; doubt, beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence?

Fair representation? How do you keep a voting bloc of China and India from effectively dictating to the world?

Pie in the sky ideas are great when you're young and idealistic. When you become old enough for that to fade and allow reality and pragmatism to take hold, then you make rational decisions.

If you want peace, you have to be so prepared for war that no one dares interrupt your peace. You have to be the biggest, baddest sonuvabitch on the planet and have enough restraint to not use that power when you shouldn't, voluntarily interrupting your own peace by sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

I'd like to see the US engage in a little more of the former and a lot less of the latter. Not necessarily isolationism, but restraint. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Strong castles, deep moats, big cannons. All I want is the digital equivalent and the ability to pull up the drawbridge.