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."

16 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Stupd move by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People tolerated the US controlling ICANN because we were viewed as impartial, or at least less partial than an international organization. But this raises considerable doubt as to whether or not the US should still be allowed that level of control. Which is unfortunate because historically we've had a much better record on freedom of speech than most other countries, to throw that away now so that we can preserve a dieing industry is troubling to say the least.

  2. Due process anybody? by spectro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    The same applies to the former DNS provider for wikileaks, visa, mastercard and anybody else who stopped doing business with them just because they got a call from some government dude accusing them of illegal activity.

    --
    HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    1. 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.

  3. Get back in your Free Speech Zone by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is unfortunate because historically we've had a much better record on freedom of speech than most other countries,

    Historically, meaning what? thirty years ago? Now we have special places where you can go to protest and no one will have to hear you. We have laws against saying bad things about food, for crying out loud. Free speech is for the rich. If you own a media empire, you have some semblance of free speech. Otherwise, you only have freedom of speech until you say something that someone with money and/or power doesn't like.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Get back in your Free Speech Zone by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We have laws against saying bad things about food, [wikipedia.org] for crying out loud."

      No -- no we don't. We have laws against deliberately and knowingly spreading false negative information about food products. But I don't expect that to get past your Slashdot mental filter.

      Hahaha, oh, that is rich. Try saying that rGBH is bad. Heck, try marketing milk that is rGBH free. By claiming that your milk does not have bovine growth hormone, you are saying that bovine growth hormone is bad. And you will be sued.

      Did you know that the standards of proof are different when you are being sued for badmouthing
      food than when you are sued for badmouthing a person? When you badmouth a person, that person has to prove your guilt. When you badmouth food, you must prove your innocence.

      I will repeat that. When you are sued for saying bad things about food, you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. 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
    3. Re:Get back in your Free Speech Zone by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    4. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Freenet by goldarg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of re-inventing the wheel Why not try out a existing darknet in the form of Freenet http://freenetproject.org/ or i2p http://www.i2p2.de/

  7. Re:how is it censorship? by gnuASM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the article says and even links to the fact that the US Government busted people selling counterfeit or pirated goods.

    Wrong. The article says that the "ICE said" that these sites were "engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works". These are allegations, not "facts". Preponderance of evidence proving a crime has been committed is accomplished only through proper due process. There were no references to a court order, no references to a court trial, nor any reference to admittance of a crime. It is apparent to me that the DNS redirects were accomplished under duress of an executive agency without judicial oversight:

    The seizures were accomplished by getting the VeriSign registry, owner of the .com and .net top-level domains, to change the authoritative domain-name servers for the seized domains to servers controlled by DHS.

    I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.

    At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.

    We won't even go into the allusion in the article that the government is apparently deceptively redirecting site traffic to its own servers.

  8. TSA vs. the OpenPGP web of trust by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    One way around this would be to have signed DNS records, but then you still need some kind of authority for the signing.

    I would have kneejerk replied "try the web of trust", but that's under attack as a consequence of the actions of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. The OpenPGP global web of trust relies on some users traveling hundreds of miles to key signing parties so that they can extend the web of trust by meeting well-known people living far from them. Otherwise, if Alice is trying to communicate with Bob, but nobody living near Alice has gone to a key signing party with someone living near Bob, they can't verify each other's keys. But the TSA with its "Rapist-scan" backscatter machines and "gate rape" pat-downs is making it hard to travel such distances.

  9. 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
  10. Re:how is it censorship? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Completely clean? The companies are not run out of the US. Would it be illegal buy a billboard and put come to something that's illegal in your is legal here? By that logic the Indian casinos should not be able to advertise outside of there res since gambling is generally not legal elsewhere? Should we seize there domain names?

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  11. What about the reverse zone? by DeadBeef · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about putting an A or AAAA record in a reverse DNS zone, so your site ends up looking like http://2.0.192.in-addr.arpa/ or whatever. There is no registry involved with the delegation of those reverse zones, so it would be alot more difficult for anyone to interfere with it.

    --
    I am a lawyer and this constitutes legal advice and I shall indemnify you against any losses arising from taking it.