Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Curtis! On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Curtis Maurand wrote: > The patriot act did away with due process. Yep. More on that today: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/realtime/ RGDS GARY - ---

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

> To expect someone not to "pressure" someone to remove potentially > damaging material is probably naïve. i believe that the material was not stored on amazon, only torrent pointers. and to cave to that pressure absent of actual legal requirement cost amazon my business. randy

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

The patriot act did away with due process. On 12/3/2010 3:10 PM, Randy Fischer wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, George Bonser wrote: As for a member of Congress pressuring Amazon, what else would one expect? If a site has content that the USG might see as "damaging", and if a US comp

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

> Other possible solution would be a DNSarchive, in > the same way there is a WebArchive. Any volunteer? The RIPE REX tool provides something like this, at least for the reverse tree.

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, George Bonser wrote: > As for a member of Congress pressuring Amazon, what else would one expect?   > If a site has content that the USG might see as "damaging", and if a US > company is facilitating the distribution of that content, sure, I would > expect member

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

For the record, I would never remove a customer because a congressman or senator asked for it, however, I would deny service to persons with outstanding felony warrant(s). Jeff On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, George Bonser wrote: > > >> >> I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryl

RE: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

> > I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryly said). It was reported in the last couple of days that Wikileaks could have been taken off the net but the govt decided not to do it. As for a member of Congress pressuring Amazon, what else would one expect? If a site has content

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:27:57AM -0600, Dan White wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > Their A records on Sunday were: (No longer working.) Several people are keeping track of working IP addresses and avertise them in the DNS (wikileaks.something.example). Other have full mirrors. A c

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On 03/12/10 00:52 -0500, Ken Chase wrote: On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 02:26:35PM +0900, Randy Bush said: >so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns >will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even >handedly to all sufferers of ddos. > >if not, as a

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryly said). Perhaps the PRC's works too. -J

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Friday 03 December 2010 13:22:19 Frank Bulk wrote: > I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryly said). They missed ;) http://wikileaks.ch http://twitter.com/wikileaks

RE: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

cking International DNS) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 12/2/2010 11:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> >> so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns >> will no longer serve the domain. i hope t

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

... ... The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy. the claim is that being ddos'd is an aup violation. go figure.

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

wikileaks.no and wikleaks.se seem to accept requests on port 80 but appear to be having troubles generating responses, perhaps just overloaded. On Dec 3, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:52:29AM -0500, > Ken Chase wrote > a message of 24 lines which s

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:52:29AM -0500, Ken Chase wrote a message of 24 lines which said: > Anyone have records of what wikileaks (RR, i assume) A record was? 91.121.133.41 46.59.1.2 Translated into an URL, the first one does not work (virtual hosting, may be) but the second does. I've f

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

* Jack Bates (jba...@brightok.net) wrote: > Given "These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the > stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access > to almost 500,000 other websites." I'd say they had DOS issues with > their nameservers. They can't be expected to let

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 12/2/2010 11:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> >> so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns >> will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even >> handed

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On 3/12/10 3:05 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: "does > Wikileaks run on 208V?" :) > > http://www.everydns.com/ > > right hand side. > > (sorry to shift the discussion off of uucp... long live > sizone.uucp...) There is a list of mirror sites here: htt

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On 12/2/2010 11:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote: so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even handedly to all sufferers of ddos. Given "These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 02:26:35PM +0900, Randy Bush said: >so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns >will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even >handedly to all sufferers of ddos. > >if not, as a registrar, i guess i can no longer acc

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

Sort of weird theory, but it sounds really strange that knowing the kind of reactions that one could expect due the content being published in the site that they have such a naive dns setup for that given domain. Unless what you are looking for is actually getting booted so you can cry loud (which

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even handedly to all sufferers of ddos. if not, as a registrar, i guess i can no longer accept registrations where everydns is the ns delegatee. randy

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

Everydns says on their page: "EveryDNS.net provided domain name system (DNS) services to the wikileaks.org domain name until 10PM EST, December 2, 2010, when such services were terminated. As with other users of the EveryDNS.net network, this service was provided for free. The termination of servi

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

> [TME-MBP-2010:~] tme% dig wikileaks.org > > ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> wikileaks.org > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 37692 > ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 > ;; WARNING: recursion requested but

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:05 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: "does > Wikileaks run on 208V?" :) > > http://www.everydns.com/ > > right hand side. > > (sorry to shift the discussion off of uucp... long live > sizone.uucp...) Seems to be down here http://w

Re: Blocking International DNS

Jorge, On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > I bet it is not a trivial enterprise to put together and give shape to > an organization like ICANN. My biggest concern is that somewhere in > the painful process of building this organization something got > completely derailed from its ori

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:16:23PM -0600, Jorge Amodio said: >On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ken Chase wrote: >> All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: "does >> Wikileaks run on 208V?" :) > >If they keep going that way, soon they will be running on nuclear >power from the

Re: wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: "does > Wikileaks run on 208V?" :) If they keep going that way, soon they will be running on nuclear power from the hidden centrifuges in some cave. Cheers Jorge

wikileaks dns (was Re: Blocking International DNS)

All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: "does Wikileaks run on 208V?" :) http://www.everydns.com/ right hand side. (sorry to shift the discussion off of uucp... long live sizone.uucp...) /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - C

Re: Blocking International DNS

> btw, i spent quite a bit of my time with the berkman center researchers > working on accountability and transparency on just the issue of how users > can be represented and i think it a hard problem. I bet it is not a trivial enterprise to put together and give shape to an organization like ICAN

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:19:33 am Randy Bush wrote: > boy, you folk sure remember a different uucp network than i do. Well, I got in the uucp thing rather late, hooking up in 1991 or so. By then to get e-mail through uucico it was common practice to bangpath off uunet, or some other 'k

Re: Blocking International DNS

and anyone who thinks that the fidonet was not hierarchic is not taking their meds. yes, the bad bad node ops :) bye, Ingo

Re: Blocking International DNS

> /-\ > | | > |mcvaxphilabs | > | // | | > tektronix-decvaxlinus

Re: Blocking International DNS

> boy, you folk sure remember a different uucp network than i do. Backbone Map from 1984 /-\ | | |mcvax--

Re: Blocking International DNS

> On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:57:40 pm Mark Andrews wrote: >> And there would have been total confusion if there had been multiple >> uunet's and a few other well known nodes. UUCP had anchor points. >> Just different ones to the DNS. > Yeah, and with virtually everyone's bangpaths starting

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:57:40 pm Mark Andrews wrote: > And there would have been total confusion if there had been multiple > uunet's and a few other well known nodes. UUCP had anchor points. > Just different ones to the DNS. Yeah, and with virtually everyone's bangpaths starting with

Re: Blocking International DNS

Also while different segments may have some level of participation (including folks that claim they represent the users which they do not) by design ICANN is a membership less organization so the multi stake holder model is a lie and the bottom up process when the bottom does not have the same l

Re: Blocking International DNS

ICANN is not the problem. It is itself a problem because over the years instead of being a technical coordinator for names and numbers became the playground and clearinghouse for IP (Intellectual Property) groups, all sorts of color, sizes and shapes of attorneys milking from the "DNS ecosystem"

Re: Blocking International DNS

> Can you cite specific examples of USG interfering with ccTLDs? >>> For several decades the USG has made it crystal clear that they do >>> not mess with ccTLDs, not even ones for countries they don't like >>> such as .CU and .IR. >> possibly clear to you.  the factual experience is that this state

Re: Blocking International DNS

Randy, Can you cite specific examples of USG interfering with ccTLDs? Jeff On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> For several decades the USG has made it crystal clear that they do >> not mess with ccTLDs, not even ones for countries they don't like >> such as .CU and .IR. > > po

Re: Blocking International DNS

> For several decades the USG has made it crystal clear that they do > not mess with ccTLDs, not even ones for countries they don't like > such as .CU and .IR. possibly clear to you. the factual experience is that this statement is patently false to those dealing with those particular cctlds. ra

Re: Blocking International DNS

>the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second >trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, This particular domain grab had nothing to do with the root or ICANN. If you look at the name servers and WHOIS of the domains that were seized, you ca

Re: Blocking International DNS

Steve, On Dec 1, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: >> Wouldn't this simply change the focus of who can attack from the USG (which, >> as far as I am aware, has not attacked the root) to some other government >> (or worse, the UN)? Given a handle, folks are going to want to grab it when

Re: Blocking International DNS

In message , "Lyndon Neren berg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)" writes: > > Also, who you will really trust to run it ? > > The UUCP network chugged along quite nicely for many years without any > central authority. (Pathalias and the maps weren't an authority, just > a hint.) And there would have been total

Re: Blocking International DNS

*wonders where his fidonet archives are. dusty. Any system needs to be designed to be open to anyone at any level of the economic chart and a minimum of technical knowledge to implement. This does not necessarily need to encompass the identification requirements for commerce, that may well be

Re: Blocking International DNS

> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000787.html I see no drafts, no white or any color papers, no research, no background, good intentions and a napkin list of specs/requirements, no substance. -J

Re: Blocking International DNS

> Also, who you will really trust to run it ? The UUCP network chugged along quite nicely for many years without any central authority. (Pathalias and the maps weren't an authority, just a hint.) --lyndon

Re: Blocking International DNS

> And I have too many bad memories of Alternic > to feel comfortable about Peter Sunde's P2P ideas. IMHO, there is a basic and fundamental flaw on many of the "alternate" schemes. The current "DNS ecosystem" has been feeding the pockets of many for many years and became what a ~$7B? industry ? man

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > we have a significant failure by the security community in that they keep > giving us hierarchic models, pgp being a notable exception. --- R

Re: Blocking International DNS

> but playing with the current dns is a short term solution. > > in the long run, centralization/rootification of control is equivalent > to monopoly. and we have seen time and again that this leads to > despotism, often cloaked in false protectionism and false "we represent > the community.".

Re: Blocking International DNS

> internationalizing ICANN may be the best solution. for sure! if it is truly removed from the states and not put in genf. gedanken experiment: who would i trust more to not interfere with **other people's** data, the usg, icann, the itu, or the pirate bay party? my conclusion makes me very sad

Re: Blocking International DNS

> Wasn't this exactly why people suggested ICANN should just move to > Switzerland and become an independent international organization ? Would > this still be possibility ? You can move ICANN to Mars but unless you move the "root", IANA is and will still be under USG control as it is today. Also

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second > trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, > or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone > supported, we may want to at

Re: Blocking International DNS

>> the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a >> second trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the >> root now, or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, >> let alone supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our >> deployments. >

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:18 42PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second >> trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, >> or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second > trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, > or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone > supported, we may want to att

Re: Blocking International DNS

Randy Bush wrote: the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our deployment

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 12/01/2010 10:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second > trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, > or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone > supported, we may want to attempt

Re: Blocking International DNS

the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now, or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our deployments. randy

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said: >Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law >find yourself a ccTLD. Perhaps for his reasons at the time yes, but I'm applying it to the topic of the suspended-for-now-bill that allows blocking of any domain in

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said: >Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law >find yourself a ccTLD. Perhaps for his reasons at the time yes, but I'm applying it to the topic of the suspended-for-now-bill that allows blocking of any domain in

Re: Blocking International DNS

Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law find yourself a ccTLD. Jeff On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > as for the alt root servers idea, in case you didnt see this: > > http://twitter.com/brokep/status/8779363872935936 > > (Nods to Richard Sexton :) >

Re: Blocking International DNS

as for the alt root servers idea, in case you didnt see this: http://twitter.com/brokep/status/8779363872935936 (Nods to Richard Sexton :) /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front

Re: Blocking International DNS

>> And once you get these things in place you never know where it will end... > That, OTOH, is true. > Actually, we do. Every time a country creates a list, even though you wouldn't expect it from these respectable countries, politicians and policemen with their good intentions, somehow things e

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Bjørn Mork wrote: Joakim Aronius writes: * Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote: This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver based blacklist of child porn sites. Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS blacklist for childporn, pe

Re: Blocking International DNS

Subject: Re: Blocking International DNS Date: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:55:56PM +0100 Quoting Joakim Aronius (joa...@aronius.com): > * Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote: > > This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver > > based blacklist of c

Re: Blocking International DNS

Joakim Aronius writes: > * Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote: >> This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver >> based blacklist of child porn sites. >> > > Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS blacklist for childporn, > perhaps also other European coun

Re: Blocking International DNS

* Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote: > This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver > based blacklist of child porn sites. > Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS blacklist for childporn, perhaps also other European countries. The list is maintained by

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Nov 19, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) > passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee > with a unanimous (!) vote : COICA appears to be dead for this year. Ron Wyden (D Oregon) has put a hold on COI

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 11/22/2010 07:47 PM, Wil Schultz wrote: > The more I think about this COICA deal the more I can't even fathom > how it could be implemented. > > If an upstream server won't resolve, what's to stop a network admin > from using an offshored DNS server, or even the root servers? The way I read it

Re: Blocking International DNS

The more I think about this COICA deal the more I can't even fathom how it could be implemented. If an upstream server won't resolve, what's to stop a network admin from using an offshored DNS server, or even the root servers? Unless we're talking about keeping DNS traffic confined to the ISP'

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Nov 22, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > I guess if the manner of the interception was to send back SERVFAIL to DNS > clients whose queries were (in some sense) objectionable, the result would be > that the clients were not able to resolve the (in some sense) bad names. Quantifying th

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 2010-11-22, at 10:35, Curtis Maurand wrote: > And where would the list that we need to block be gotten from? bittorrent? :-)

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Nov 22, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 2010-11-22, at 00:00, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > >> Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the >> progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is >> once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 2010-11-22, at 10:43, Joe Greco wrote: > It's funny, isn't it, didn't we just finish convincing the government > of the need for DNSSEC, making the DNS system more resistant to some > forms of tampering? I guess if the manner of the interception was to send back SERVFAIL to DNS clients whose

Re: Blocking International DNS

> You don't think > > "(i) a 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=92s Internet prot

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 11/22/2010 10:25 AM, Joe Abley wrote: You don't think "(i) a 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 d

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 2010-11-22, at 00:00, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the > progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is > once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet > safe You don't think "(i) a service pro

Re: Blocking International DNS

My two cents is that something like this won't pass until at least 2016 if not 2020. Jeff On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Ken Chase wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said: >  >Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the >  >progressive's futi

Re: Blocking International DNS

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said: >Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the >progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is >once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet >safe When I ran a bun

Re: Blocking International DNS

Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet safe Jeff On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote: > > > On 22/11/2010, at 3

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 22/11/2010, at 3:37 PM, ML wrote: > On 11/19/2010 3:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) >> passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee >> with a unanimous (!) vote : >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 11/19/2010 3:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a unanimous (!) vote : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unanimous-sup

Re: Blocking International DNS

This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver based blacklist of child porn sites. There are also of course the various great firewalls of various countries. In case you'd prefer that to having to blacklist them at your end .. Doing this for trademark infringement is going

Re: Blocking International DNS

On 11/19/2010 03:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act > (COICA) passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a > unanimous (!) vote : > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unani

Blocking International DNS

It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a unanimous (!) vote : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unanimous-support.ars http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billte