Slashdot Mirror


Coders Develop Ways To Defeat SOPA Censorship

Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that one developer who doesn't have much faith in Congress making the right decision on anti-piracy legislation has already built a workaround for the impending censorship measures being considered, and called it DeSOPA. Since SOPA would block specific domain names (e.g. www.thepiratebay.com) of allegedly infringing sites, T Rizk's Firefox add-on allows you to revert to the bare internet protocol (IP) address (e.g. 194.71.107.15) which takes you to the same place. 'It could be that a few members of Congress are just not tech savvy and don't understand that it is technically not going to work, at all,' says T Rizk. 'So here's some proof that I hope will help them err on the side of reason and vote SOPA down.' Another group called 'MAFIAAFire' decided to respond when Homeland Security's ICE unit started seizing domain names, by coding a browser add-on to redirect the affected websites to their new domains. More than 200,000 people have already installed the add-on. ICE wasn't happy, and asked Mozilla to pull the add-on from their site. Mozilla denied the request, arguing that this type of censorship may threaten the open Internet."

12 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Good move by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's like MafiaaFire/FireIce for SOPA, just like a little custom HOSTS file in the form of a browser addon.

    Technically not brilliant but a good political move, to demonstrate the futility of this legislation.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Good move by AikonMGB · · Score: 5, Funny

      We'll make our own Internet! With blackjack, and hookers!

      Aikon-

    2. Re:Good move by Marc+Madness · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... in fact, never mind the Internet and blackjack!

    3. Re:Good move by elsurexiste · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not futile: it's Congress spurring innovation! Yeah, on workarounds for the law, but innovation nonetheless.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    4. Re:Good move by imakemusic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck it, we'll do it live!

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    5. Re:Good move by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Informative

      A custom HOSTS file is all well and good, but doesn't take into account the type of censorship that's currently happening in the UK, with BT and SKY, with the Great British Firewall.

      Both ISPs have instituted a blockade on Newzbin using BT's Cleanfeed, which acts as a transparent proxy between the user and the server. Typing in the IP address results in a timeout. Using OnpenDNS or Google's DNS results in the same issue.

      If and when the US pro-censorship copyright cabals lobby for such a technological measure, a custom HOSTS file won't work.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  2. Re:How Is This an Add-On? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's to stop me from entering the IP address without the add-on?

    Several things.

    First, you have to know the IP address. The point of one of the the plug-ins, as far as I understand it, is that it automatically gets the list of known seized host names and IP addresses for you.

    Second is that entering the IP manually presumes that an IP address only has one web host on it. This is far from true - with dynamic hosting, lots of domains share the same IP address. It's by the browser sending "Host: www.somewhere.foo" in the header of the request that the web server knows which host's content to serve you. "Host: NNN.NNN.NNN.NNN" is likely only going to give you the hosting provider's web page, or even just a generic "Welcome to Apache" page for those who haven't configured it.

    Oh, and third, have fun entering IPv6 addresses that way...

  3. Re:How Is This an Add-On? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nothing prevents a plugin from sending additional HTTP headers (e.g. the Host: header) once the TCP connection has been established to the IP address. No DNS intervention is needed for this.

    Um, you didn't read the post I was replying to, did you? That was exactly my point - a plugin can do that, but manually entering the IP address instead of using a plugin won't.

    And no, the Host: header isn't an additional header - it's a required header (for HTTP/1.1 and above). So a plugin have better replace the Host header that the browser sets, not add one.

  4. Re:Congress vs the world's 10-million geek army... by Scr4tchFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The lawyers.

  5. Re:IP-level blocks by cybergrue · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It has been said that the Internet routes around problems (censorship), however there are plenty of choke-points (transoceanic cables for example) where a reverse DNS look-up could be used to filter the IP addresses of the packets going through. And before you say encrypted VPN, the technology already exists and is being used to detect and block encrypted traffic (Pakistan and Turkey) on the network.

    Yes it is possible to get around these countermeasures, but it will not be easy and probably result in a significant decrease in transmission speeds (sending and receiving). And when these techniques become widely known, they will be blocked in turn.

    In short, this legislation will break the Internet. Laughing at the dumb politicians who don't understand technology is a dangerous thing to do because there are no simple workarounds that will keep the Internet working the way we know it if this passes.

  6. Re:Firefox Plugin by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can they make a DNS server illegal?

    By passing a law? That's how anything becomes illegal.

  7. Response from my senator by Pawnn · · Score: 5, Informative

    The other day I decided to send a note to my senator urging him not to pass SOPA.

    Here's the response I got. It made me sad.
    Dear Joshua,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the Protect IP Act.

    Intellectual property industries employ more than 19 million people, making it an integral part of our economy. Rogue websites dedicated to the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and pirated content are a direct threat to these jobs and to entrepreneurs growing and building legitimate businesses online.

    Businesses have lost $135 billion in revenue annually as a result of these rogue sites. Customers have also been harmed by these sites; for example, online pharmacies that don't adhere to U.S. regulations have been reported to cause a rapid increase in prescription drug abuse.

    I am a cosponsor of the Protect IP Act which would cut off foreign websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy that steal American jobs, hurt the economy, and harm customers. It would allow the Justice Department to file a civil action against those who have registered or own a domain name linked to an infringing website. The bill does not allow the Justice Department to target domain names registered by a U.S. entity.

    Innovation is a cornerstone of our nation's economic growth. Proper intellectual property protections and incentives ensure that inventors develop products that benefit consumers. Without such incentives for innovators, we risk falling behind places like China and India.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

    Sincere regards,
    Roy Blunt United States Senator