Slashdot Mirror


Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS

jfruhlinger writes "Last month, the US gov't shut down a number of sites it claimed were infringing copyright. They did it by ordering VeriSign to change the sites' authoritative domain name servers. This revealed that DNS is subject to government interference — and now a number of projects have emerged to bypass DNS entirely."

7 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Re:how is it censorship? by sehlat · · Score: 5, Informative

    As has been noted elsewhere, a number of the sites seized were, in fact, quite legitimate ones.

    Bypassing due process is quick and cheap in the (very) short term, but an expensive disaster over the long haul.

  2. Re:Pointless by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative

    most sites share a numeric IP with many virtual hosts. in that case, you need to put the desired host header field into your http request.

  3. Re:Due process anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The issue here is due process, registrars should ignore any government "request" to remove or redirect a DNS entry unless it is ordered by a court of law.

    Which is exactly what happened in the domain seizure case. There was a court order under 18 USC 2323 (Forfiture, destruction, and restitution) served upon VeriSign. A court order, signed by a judge.

  4. Re:Due process anybody? by gnuASM · · Score: 4, Informative

    However, this is not that particular domain seizure. This is a redirect to government servers ("spoofs", if you will) with no judicial oversight. Furthermore, there was no judicial order for VeriSign to act in such a deceptive manner in support of a government actor.

    Your post only goes to prove the GPs issue on due process. If they were able to follow the rules then, why not now? This simply constitutes censorship until evidence and affidavit are submit to a judge in due process of law to obtain a writ. Only then does this become an injunction and not censorship.

  5. Re:Get back in your Free Speech Zone by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

    See the case Monsanto v. Oakhurst Dairy of Maine. Monsanto sued, forcing Oakhurst dairy to modify their labels.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  6. Re:No laws against saying anything by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unless you try to protest at a political rally and refuse to go to your assigned Free Speech Zone out back by the dumpsters. But technically, you are right. You won't be arrested for 'speaking out.' You will be arrested for disturbing the peace or some other trumped up charge.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  7. Re:Get back in your Free Speech Zone by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I grew up (so I say anyways) in Maine, and for one summer worked for Oakhurst Dairy. Many of my uncles and my father worked for them as well.

    The single most important thing to come out of that suit: Mainers now know that when you say your milk is from farmers that don't use hormones, you are getting milk without hormones. Some Mainers prefer that. All they wanna know is what's in their milk. Is that too much?

    According to the food libel laws, actually it IS. A pox on all of them.

    ps- Oakhurst is a fairly ethical company. Nobody's perfect, but they were trying last I knew. Their competition is largely out of state.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.