Topic: SOPA/PROTECT IP (Read 15387 times)

Thad · « **Reply #180 on:** February 09, 2012, 09:07:29 AM »

Ars: Big Content still VERY ANGRY that Google hijacked democracy by encouraging concerned citizens to contact their representatives instead of letting laws be decided by backroom deals with megacorporations like they're supposed to.

Thad · « **Reply #181 on:** February 17, 2012, 07:20:52 AM »

A reminder that our government doesn't need SOPA to take down websites without due process: Takedowns run amok? The strange Secret Service/GoDaddy assault on JotForm

Quote from: This article is much better if you imagine Rod Serling is reading it to you.

JotForm also doesn't create content itself. Instead, it helps customers create online forms that can then be embedded in their websites for easy data collection.

But that didn't spare the site from having its entire business shuttered without warning yesterday as the site's domain name was shut down at the request of the US Secret Service. JotForm's domain name registrar, GoDaddy, redirected the site's nameservers to NS1.SUSPENDED-FOR.SPAM-AND-ABUSE.COM—and with that, JotForm.com became unreachable and the site's two million user-created forms all broke.

And it all may have been done without a court order.

[...]

GoDaddy has long supported authorities who have concerns about the websites and domains it hosts. In Congressional testimony last year, the company's general counsel Christine Jones noted that "Our staff routinely works with courts and law enforcement from the local to international level to shut down domain names and websites through which infringers and counterfeiters operate. Any time we are notified by a court or a federal or state prosecutor that there is criminally infringing material on our systems, we work rapidly to disable access to that material."

Note the two criteria: a court order or a notification from a prosecutor. That latter category amounts to an unproven allegation—and it's what Tank believes derailed him here. "No, as far as I know, there is no judge order," he told me. "They sent a request to GoDaddy and GoDaddy complied."

No explanation for why the site was taken down; best guess:

Quote

Though unsure of what the case was even about, Tank suspected a phishing form—something that JotForm has dealt with for quite some time. The company says it runs a Bayesian phishing filter to identity and block accounts being used to harvest various kinds of user information, and that it suspended 65,000 such accounts last year alone.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #182 on:** February 17, 2012, 12:23:37 PM »

Meanwhile, the Brazilian Senate is considering passing a law that forbids selling or making videogames that are "offensive to costumes, tradition or religion."

what.
the.
christ.

Malikial · « **Reply #183 on:** February 17, 2012, 02:39:16 PM »

Quote from: Zaratustra on February 17, 2012, 12:23:37 PM

costumes

Costume Quest Trailer - Gamescom '10

JDigital · « **Reply #184 on:** February 18, 2012, 04:36:35 AM »

I haven't trusted Godaddy since they pulled 4chan.net and sold it away. That's why 4chan is at 4chan.org now, but you can still see title images referring to the .net domain.

Bal · « **Reply #185 on:** February 18, 2012, 05:53:43 AM »

Quote from: Zaratustra on February 17, 2012, 12:23:37 PM

Meanwhile, the Brazilian Senate is considering passing a law that forbids selling or making videogames that are "offensive to costumes, tradition or religion."

what.
the.
christo redemptor

The three most important things to Brazil, obviously.

Thad · « **Reply #186 on:** February 29, 2012, 09:50:29 AM »

SOPA sponsor decides that whole Canadian warantless-spying-on-everything-everyone-does-on-the-Internet idea is awesome.

Brentai · « **Reply #187 on:** March 09, 2012, 08:11:03 PM »

Sometimes you have to wonder if all this ado is really over nothing.

I mean, content creators are smart. They aren't really going to go on a takedown bender and get shit pulled for absolutely no reason. They're certainly not going to grossly violate fair use principles.

These regulations are specifically to target people who outright steal content, and really minor violators or those who are at least arguably in the right should be perfectly safe.

Your internet, and the parts of it you enjoy the most, will be perfectly fine.

Doesn't that make you feel better, Piccolo?

! Private video

Mongrel · « **Reply #188 on:** March 09, 2012, 10:36:25 PM »

Aren't there like forty copies of that speech on YouTube (and at a glance all the others are still up)?

_{EDIT: To clarify, I don't disagree with your... sarcasm.}

Büge · « **Reply #189 on:** March 16, 2012, 09:49:47 AM »

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/15/american-isps-to-launch-massive-copyright-spying-scheme-on-july-12/

sigh

Mongrel · « **Reply #190 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:14:46 AM »

This should get interesting.

I wonder if Google will begin to look at the business case for being an ISP?

Thad · « **Reply #191 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:31:09 AM »

Quote from: Büge on March 16, 2012, 09:49:47 AM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/15/american-isps-to-launch-massive-copyright-spying-scheme-on-july-12/

American Internet users to switch en masse to private trackers and encrypted protocols on July 11.

Mongrel · « **Reply #192 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:40:00 AM »

... I fell dumb because I have no idea what you're referring to.

Guess I'd better learn though.

Thad · « **Reply #193 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:57:19 AM »

"Private tracker" refers to a BT tracker that requires a membership. Hypothetically, at least, it's harder for some goon at the RIAA just to hop on one of these, slurp all the IP's, and send letters to the ISP's.

Of course, in that case you're still using a tracker, which is an obsolescent way of getting a torrent.

Course, you wanna talk "obsolescent", an encrypted Usenet service will cost you $6.67 a month or a nickel a gig. I don't think we'll ever hit a point where a typical luser decides that Usenet is the best place to get the latest Michael Bay movie, but expect more filesharing services to start using SSL.

Paid proxies seem like a potential Next Big Thing, too. Think of something that obfuscates your IP as effectively as Tor but costs money and doesn't come with the same massive performance hit.

Mongrel · « **Reply #194 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:19:53 PM »

I almost feel like I should go back to pirate downloading just to stay on top of these things and not turn into that-stereotypical-old-man-who-can't-even-turn-the-computer-on. I used torrents for like... a couple of months when they were very new and haven't had to since.

(I stopped downloading stuff because I just didn't need to anymore... I consume such little media nowadays. Although I read a metric fuckton of news and messageboard tripe).

EDIT: Well, that's not entirely true. Every month or two I go get a handful of old songs off of Soulseek.

Thad · « **Reply #195 on:** April 20, 2012, 08:40:41 AM »

So how'bout that CISPA?

Quote

One of the scariest parts of CISPA is that the bill goes above and beyond information sharing. Its definitions allow for countermeasures to be taken by private entities, and we think these provisions are ripe for abuse. Indeed, the bill defines "cybersecurity purpose" as any threat related to safeguarding or protecting a network. As long as companies act in "good faith" to combat such a cybersecurity threat, they have leeway to protect against “efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy [a] system or network.” This opens the door for ISPs and other companies to perform aggressive countermeasures like dropping or altering packets, so long as this is used as part of a scheme to identify cybersecurity threats. These countermeasures could put free speech in peril, and jeopardize the ordinary functioning of the Internet. This could also mean blocking websites, or disrupting privacy-enhancing technologies such as Tor. These countermeasures could even serve as a back door to enact policies unrelated to cybersecurity, such as disrupting p2p traffic.

The Cato Institute warned that one could imagine: "a sysadmin with a vigilante streak reading ['cybersecurity systems'] to include aggressive countermeasures, like spyware targeting suspected attackers." Their analysis continued, "After all, 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' includes provisions of (say) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that would place such tactics out of bounds." We think that a rogue sysadmin is not the only concern—no matter what the intention of the bill is now, as political realities change this language can be used to justify the sort of aggressive countermeasures that we've described, or more. This could happen not just in unusual circumstances, but as a matter of policy.

Thad · « **Reply #196 on:** July 10, 2012, 09:14:51 AM »

SOPA quietly revived as IPAA, presumably after the sound Green Lantern made when Sinestro threw him in a vat of acid.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #197 on:** July 10, 2012, 09:40:17 AM »

IPAA, motherfucker.

Büge · « **Reply #198 on:** March 26, 2013, 08:29:49 AM »

http://www.cispaisback.org/

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #199 on:** March 26, 2013, 08:39:28 AM »

Related: Mike Rogers, co-sponsor of CISPA, bragged on twitter about how much money the pro-CISPA lobbyists were throwing at him. Once he(or whichever of his staffers runs his twitter account) realized how it made him look, it was deleted.

News:

Author Topic: SOPA/PROTECT IP (Read 15387 times)