Tweet
I found the following on The Drudge Report. It has its main headline linking to Homeland Security seizes domain names. That article reads:
Here is a copy of the note, as I just found it posted at borntrade.com:
Yesterday, on another thread, in response to a question from Shiny! wondering about the role of ICANN in this, I posted the following analysis of what the U.S. government is doing to attack the internet.
It's worth reposting in the context of this present thread, as it directly applies:
============= Begin Repost =============
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is too far removed to matter here. ICANN sets the policies that determine the organizations that set the policies that determine how other organizations (registrars) may allocate Internet (IP) addresses to domain names. That process results, for example, in allocating IP address 72.47.224.11 to the name www.itulip.com.
But ICANN did not allocate that IP address. Some other company did, a couple of layers removed. Nor can ICANN specifically deallocate that address.
Governments (whether China, the United States, North Korea, or other would-be tyrants) are not focusing their efforts to control the Internet on ICANN. Rather they are focusing their efforts on the lower lever infrastructure companies, such as the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) including inter alia Comcast, Verizon, and RoadRunner, and on other companies, within their borders or wherever their "enforcement" can reach (for the U.S.A., that seems to be Planet Earth), which provide routing, hosting and name services.
The latest threat to our Internet freedom is Senate Bill 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (aka COICA, aka S3804.) Last week, this bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is now before the main body of the Senate. It has not yet been considered by the House of Representatives or the President.
This bill, S3804, would require that any
In the above text, "that domain name" refers to any domain name (e.g. "iTulip.com") on a list defined by the government, as established by this act.
I emphasized "or other operator of a domain name system server" above for personal reasons. I am such an operator. I have a DNS Server running on my PC.
This bill, S3804, raises grave concerns. See for example Concerns Regarding S. 3804, Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. It also has broad support from industry (see for example DSL Reports discussion) and bi-partisan support (that Senate Committee vote was unanimous) in Washington.
Most of us use the "domain name system server" (aka DNS Server) provided by our ISPs. A few of us prefer to use other DNS Servers, such as Level 3 (4.2.2.1), Google (8.8.8.8) or OpenDNS (208.67.222.222), or run our own DNS Servers. Almost any business with a non-trivial internal network runs its own DNS Server, serving both as the master for its own intra-corporate network and as a caching server for external references. Anyone running a DNS Server, even my own DNS Server, would be in violation of the law if we did not cooperate in banning domain names on this U.S. Federal "don't fly" list.
If the U.S. government put, for example, iTulip on it's list, then its mapping to 72.47.224.11 would disappear from the DNS Servers I use (OpenDNS and Level 3 being my favorite to cache from), and then some minutes later disappear from my own DNS Server. If I overrode that change and added that mapping back into my own DNS Server, I would be in violation of Federal law. If I then used that override to enable me to access iTulip.com, it would be immediately obvious that I was in such violation, as I would possess more or less the only computer on the planet still sending Internet packets (with my return IP address necessarily and prominently contained in them) across the Internet to iTulip.com.
Whether or not to openly flaunt the U.S. Federal government, on a decision it has just made and might expect resistance to, is a personal matter on which I cannot advise others. However I would suggest you have your personal affairs in order first, with a contact for a good lawyer and alternative means in place to care for anyone depending on your labor or income.
============== End Repost ==============
Summary:
Senate Bill 3804 and the above ICE actions are consistent. They both attack the Internet by taking down domain names.
The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.
ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.
The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.
ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.
The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."
It's worth reposting in the context of this present thread, as it directly applies:
============= Begin Repost =============
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is too far removed to matter here. ICANN sets the policies that determine the organizations that set the policies that determine how other organizations (registrars) may allocate Internet (IP) addresses to domain names. That process results, for example, in allocating IP address 72.47.224.11 to the name www.itulip.com.
But ICANN did not allocate that IP address. Some other company did, a couple of layers removed. Nor can ICANN specifically deallocate that address.
Governments (whether China, the United States, North Korea, or other would-be tyrants) are not focusing their efforts to control the Internet on ICANN. Rather they are focusing their efforts on the lower lever infrastructure companies, such as the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) including inter alia Comcast, Verizon, and RoadRunner, and on other companies, within their borders or wherever their "enforcement" can reach (for the U.S.A., that seems to be Planet Earth), which provide routing, hosting and name services.
The latest threat to our Internet freedom is Senate Bill 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (aka COICA, aka S3804.) Last week, this bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is now before the main body of the Senate. It has not yet been considered by the House of Representatives or the President.
This bill, S3804, would require that any
service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17,
United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take
reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name's
Internet protocol address;
United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take
reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name's
Internet protocol address;
I emphasized "or other operator of a domain name system server" above for personal reasons. I am such an operator. I have a DNS Server running on my PC.
This bill, S3804, raises grave concerns. See for example Concerns Regarding S. 3804, Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. It also has broad support from industry (see for example DSL Reports discussion) and bi-partisan support (that Senate Committee vote was unanimous) in Washington.
Most of us use the "domain name system server" (aka DNS Server) provided by our ISPs. A few of us prefer to use other DNS Servers, such as Level 3 (4.2.2.1), Google (8.8.8.8) or OpenDNS (208.67.222.222), or run our own DNS Servers. Almost any business with a non-trivial internal network runs its own DNS Server, serving both as the master for its own intra-corporate network and as a caching server for external references. Anyone running a DNS Server, even my own DNS Server, would be in violation of the law if we did not cooperate in banning domain names on this U.S. Federal "don't fly" list.
If the U.S. government put, for example, iTulip on it's list, then its mapping to 72.47.224.11 would disappear from the DNS Servers I use (OpenDNS and Level 3 being my favorite to cache from), and then some minutes later disappear from my own DNS Server. If I overrode that change and added that mapping back into my own DNS Server, I would be in violation of Federal law. If I then used that override to enable me to access iTulip.com, it would be immediately obvious that I was in such violation, as I would possess more or less the only computer on the planet still sending Internet packets (with my return IP address necessarily and prominently contained in them) across the Internet to iTulip.com.
Whether or not to openly flaunt the U.S. Federal government, on a decision it has just made and might expect resistance to, is a personal matter on which I cannot advise others. However I would suggest you have your personal affairs in order first, with a contact for a good lawyer and alternative means in place to care for anyone depending on your labor or income.
============== End Repost ==============
Summary:
Senate Bill 3804 and the above ICE actions are consistent. They both attack the Internet by taking down domain names.
ICE is doing it now, but it would still be legal (so far as I know) for other domain name servers to continue to serve up the original mapping of domain name to IP number.
The S3804 would give the government the authority to require that all Internet Domain Name Servers (within the legal authority of the U.S., if that matters) co-operate with such take downs. If S3804 is enacted, it would be illegal for a name server to provide the mapping of a seized domain name to its original IP address.
The S3804 would give the government the authority to require that all Internet Domain Name Servers (within the legal authority of the U.S., if that matters) co-operate with such take downs. If S3804 is enacted, it would be illegal for a name server to provide the mapping of a seized domain name to its original IP address.
Comment