From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Wed Dec 14 07:16:55 2011
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:16:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
Message-ID: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.

	  Noel

--------

Begin forwarded message:


From: Peter Eckersley
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Subject: EFF call for signatures from Internet Engineers against =
censorship
To: David Farber <dave at farber.net>


(For the IP list)

Last year, EFF organized an open letter against Internet censorship
legislation being considered by the US Senate
(https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter).  Along with other activists
efforts, we successfully delayed that proposal, but need to update the letter
for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are close to passing through US Congress
now.

If you would like to sign, please email me at pde at eff.org, with a one-line
summary of what part of the Internet you helped to helped to design,
implement, debug or run.

We need signatures by 8am GMT on Thursday (midnight Wednesday US Pacific, 3am
US Eastern).  Also feel free to forward this to colleagues who played a role
in designing and building the network.

The updated letter's text is below:

We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called
the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards
and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it.
We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our
project, the Internet, has brought with it.

Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the
proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation.  Today, we are
writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives
of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate.
In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to
read last year.

If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous
fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the
credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet
infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will
risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have
other capricious technical consequences.  In exchange for this, such
legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be
circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties'
right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.

All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended
to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard
because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just
infringing pages or files.  Worse, an incredible range of useful,
law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals.  In fact, it
seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE
seizures program.

Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and
security problems.  This is true in China, Iran and other countries that
censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship.  It
is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS,
proxies, firewalls, or any other method.  Types of network errors and
insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will
affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.

The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten
engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily
and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government.
When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were
reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or
control.
We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance
as a design requirement for new Internet innovations.  This can only damage
the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power
over what their citizens can read and publish.

The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open
Internet, both domestically and abroad.  We cannot have a free and open
Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political
concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the
leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly
uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a
neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its
central in the network for censorship that advances its political and
economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.

Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too
valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills
aside.

--

Peter Eckersley                            pde at eff.org
Technology Projects Director      Tel  +1 415 436 9333 x131
Electronic Frontier Foundation    Fax  +1 415 436 9993

-------------------------------------------



From vint at google.com  Wed Dec 14 10:01:21 2011
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:01:21 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggeDoen9uxD5gJvDRp-yj5-wEUgqyvksTsx6LQ3EUDkMPg@mail.gmail.com>

i will sign (personally)

v


On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>
> ? ? ? ? ?Noel
>
> --------
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> From: Peter Eckersley
> Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011
> Subject: EFF call for signatures from Internet Engineers against =
> censorship
> To: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
>
>
> (For the IP list)
>
> Last year, EFF organized an open letter against Internet censorship
> legislation being considered by the US Senate
> (https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter). ?Along with other activists
> efforts, we successfully delayed that proposal, but need to update the letter
> for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are close to passing through US Congress
> now.
>
> If you would like to sign, please email me at pde at eff.org, with a one-line
> summary of what part of the Internet you helped to helped to design,
> implement, debug or run.
>
> We need signatures by 8am GMT on Thursday (midnight Wednesday US Pacific, 3am
> US Eastern). ?Also feel free to forward this to colleagues who played a role
> in designing and building the network.
>
> The updated letter's text is below:
>
> We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called
> the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards
> and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it.
> We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our
> project, the Internet, has brought with it.
>
> Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the
> proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation. ?Today, we are
> writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives
> of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate.
> In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to
> read last year.
>
> If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous
> fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the
> credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet
> infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will
> risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have
> other capricious technical consequences. ?In exchange for this, such
> legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be
> circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties'
> right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.
>
> All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended
> to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard
> because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just
> infringing pages or files. ?Worse, an incredible range of useful,
> law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals. ?In fact, it
> seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE
> seizures program.
>
> Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and
> security problems. ?This is true in China, Iran and other countries that
> censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship. ?It
> is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS,
> proxies, firewalls, or any other method. ?Types of network errors and
> insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will
> affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
>
> The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten
> engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily
> and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government.
> When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were
> reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or
> control.
> We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance
> as a design requirement for new Internet innovations. ?This can only damage
> the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power
> over what their citizens can read and publish.
>
> The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open
> Internet, both domestically and abroad. ?We cannot have a free and open
> Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political
> concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the
> leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly
> uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a
> neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its
> central in the network for censorship that advances its political and
> economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.
>
> Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too
> valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills
> aside.
>
> --
>
> Peter Eckersley ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pde at eff.org
> Technology Projects Director ? ? ?Tel ?+1 415 436 9333 x131
> Electronic Frontier Foundation ? ?Fax ?+1 415 436 9993
>
> -------------------------------------------
>



From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Wed Dec 14 10:46:09 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:09 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <4EE8EEF1.7080409@dcrocker.net>



On 12/14/2011 7:16 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.


I'd like to sign but do not see the mechanism for doing this.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Wed Dec 14 12:37:40 2011
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:37:40 +0200
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <F54A6649-93E1-412A-99DB-AB8C922C0710@gmail.com>

I sent email to pde at eff.org as instructed.

Bob

On Dec 14, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
> 
> 	  Noel
> 
> --------
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> From: Peter Eckersley
> Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011
> Subject: EFF call for signatures from Internet Engineers against =
> censorship
> To: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
> 
> 
> (For the IP list)
> 
> Last year, EFF organized an open letter against Internet censorship
> legislation being considered by the US Senate
> (https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter).  Along with other activists
> efforts, we successfully delayed that proposal, but need to update the letter
> for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are close to passing through US Congress
> now.
> 
> If you would like to sign, please email me at pde at eff.org, with a one-line
> summary of what part of the Internet you helped to helped to design,
> implement, debug or run.
> 
> We need signatures by 8am GMT on Thursday (midnight Wednesday US Pacific, 3am
> US Eastern).  Also feel free to forward this to colleagues who played a role
> in designing and building the network.
> 
> The updated letter's text is below:
> 
> We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called
> the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards
> and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it.
> We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our
> project, the Internet, has brought with it.
> 
> Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the
> proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation.  Today, we are
> writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives
> of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate.
> In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to
> read last year.
> 
> If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous
> fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the
> credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet
> infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will
> risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have
> other capricious technical consequences.  In exchange for this, such
> legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be
> circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties'
> right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.
> 
> All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended
> to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard
> because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just
> infringing pages or files.  Worse, an incredible range of useful,
> law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals.  In fact, it
> seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE
> seizures program.
> 
> Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and
> security problems.  This is true in China, Iran and other countries that
> censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship.  It
> is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS,
> proxies, firewalls, or any other method.  Types of network errors and
> insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will
> affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
> 
> The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten
> engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily
> and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government.
> When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were
> reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or
> control.
> We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance
> as a design requirement for new Internet innovations.  This can only damage
> the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power
> over what their citizens can read and publish.
> 
> The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open
> Internet, both domestically and abroad.  We cannot have a free and open
> Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political
> concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the
> leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly
> uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a
> neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its
> central in the network for censorship that advances its political and
> economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.
> 
> Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too
> valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills
> aside.
> 
> --
> 
> Peter Eckersley                            pde at eff.org
> Technology Projects Director      Tel  +1 415 436 9333 x131
> Electronic Frontier Foundation    Fax  +1 415 436 9993
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 




From AMaitland at Commerco.Com  Thu Dec 15 23:46:24 2011
From: AMaitland at Commerco.Com (Alan Maitland)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:46:24 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <F54A6649-93E1-412A-99DB-AB8C922C0710@gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<F54A6649-93E1-412A-99DB-AB8C922C0710@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEAF750.8030009@Commerco.Com>

Looks like the open letter at EFF is now public.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa

Hopefully those on this list and some others with credible experience 
will prevail in turning lawmakers away from what seems pretty bad law.

Alan

>> From: Peter Eckersley
>> Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011
>> Subject: EFF call for signatures from Internet Engineers against =
>> censorship
>> To: David Farber<dave at farber.net>
>>
>>
>> (For the IP list)
>>
>> Last year, EFF organized an open letter against Internet censorship
>> legislation being considered by the US Senate
>> (https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter).  Along with other activists
>> efforts, we successfully delayed that proposal, but need to update the letter
>> for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are close to passing through US Congress
>> now.
>>
>> If you would like to sign, please email me at pde at eff.org, with a one-line
>> summary of what part of the Internet you helped to helped to design,
>> implement, debug or run.
>>
>> We need signatures by 8am GMT on Thursday (midnight Wednesday US Pacific, 3am
>> US Eastern).  Also feel free to forward this to colleagues who played a role
>> in designing and building the network.
>>
>> The updated letter's text is below:
>>
>> We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called
>> the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards
>> and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it.
>> We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our
>> project, the Internet, has brought with it.
>>
>> Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the
>> proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation.  Today, we are
>> writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives
>> of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate.
>> In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to
>> read last year.
>>
>> If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous
>> fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the
>> credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet
>> infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will
>> risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have
>> other capricious technical consequences.  In exchange for this, such
>> legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be
>> circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties'
>> right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.
>>
>> All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended
>> to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard
>> because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just
>> infringing pages or files.  Worse, an incredible range of useful,
>> law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals.  In fact, it
>> seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE
>> seizures program.
>>
>> Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and
>> security problems.  This is true in China, Iran and other countries that
>> censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship.  It
>> is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS,
>> proxies, firewalls, or any other method.  Types of network errors and
>> insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will
>> affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.
>>
>> The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten
>> engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily
>> and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government.
>> When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were
>> reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or
>> control.
>> We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance
>> as a design requirement for new Internet innovations.  This can only damage
>> the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power
>> over what their citizens can read and publish.
>>
>> The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open
>> Internet, both domestically and abroad.  We cannot have a free and open
>> Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political
>> concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the
>> leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly
>> uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a
>> neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its
>> central in the network for censorship that advances its political and
>> economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.
>>
>> Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too
>> valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills
>> aside.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Peter Eckersley                            pde at eff.org
>> Technology Projects Director      Tel  +1 415 436 9333 x131
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation    Fax  +1 415 436 9993
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
>



From jmamodio at gmail.com  Sun Dec 18 19:37:46 2011
From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:37:46 -0600
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>

There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.

http://wh.gov/DfY

-J

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>
> ? ? ? ? ?Noel



From richard at bennett.com  Sun Dec 18 20:55:18 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:18 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>

Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without 
knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the 
bill. It says:

"It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov 
domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "

Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to be 
RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to 
unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell camcorder 
grabs of newly released movies without a license.

"It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to 
copyrighted material are done with permission."

SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to 
copyright material are by permission and which aren't.  It does require 
the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary purpose is 
to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but that's not 
very hard.

"This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the 
internet."

If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is the 
essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the 
Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has 
substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise violate 
the law, then don't.

RB



On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>
> http://wh.gov/DfY
>
> -J
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>  wrote:
>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>
>>           Noel

-- 
Richard Bennett



From amyzing at talsever.com  Sun Dec 18 21:44:59 2011
From: amyzing at talsever.com (Amelia A Lewis)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:44:59 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
Message-ID: <20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>

Tfu.

The bill provides a non-judicial means of action for holders of 
"intellectual property."  The essence of american jurisprudence is that 
it is *jurisprudence*, not private justice.  The holders of IP already 
have tools for court-mandated and court-moderated handling of illegal 
activity.  What they want is to bypass the unfortunate cost of going to 
court, and this bill provides them that.

It's a horrible bill.  The writers have only the vaguest understanding 
of the technical requirements and underpinning of the internet.  The 
plaintiffs decide guilt.  This is not justice.

Amy!
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:18 -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without 
> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of 
> the bill. It says:
> 
> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov 
> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
> 
> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to 
> be RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to 
> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell 
> camcorder grabs of newly released movies without a license.
> 
> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to 
> copyrighted material are done with permission."
> 
> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to 
> copyright material are by permission and which aren't.  It does 
> require the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary 
> purpose is to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but 
> that's not very hard.
> 
> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the 
> internet."
> 
> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is 
> the essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the 
> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has 
> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise 
> violate the law, then don't.
> 
> RB
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>> 
>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>> 
>> -J
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel 
>> Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>  wrote:
>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>> 
>>>           Noel
> 
> -- 
> Richard Bennett
> 


From richard at bennett.com  Sun Dec 18 22:06:42 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:06:42 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
Message-ID: <4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>

The bill, less amendments agreed to in committee on Thursday,  is here:

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf

If you're interested, read it and decide for yourself what it does. This 
amendment post-dates the drafting of the EFF letter you were asked to 
sign earlier. I think you will find that it does not declare that "the 
plaintiffs decide guilt."

In particular: no domain can be blacklisted without a court order, and 
no signed domain can be blacklisted at all.

RB

On 12/18/2011 9:44 PM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Tfu.
>
> The bill provides a non-judicial means of action for holders of
> "intellectual property."  The essence of american jurisprudence is that
> it is *jurisprudence*, not private justice.  The holders of IP already
> have tools for court-mandated and court-moderated handling of illegal
> activity.  What they want is to bypass the unfortunate cost of going to
> court, and this bill provides them that.
>
> It's a horrible bill.  The writers have only the vaguest understanding
> of the technical requirements and underpinning of the internet.  The
> plaintiffs decide guilt.  This is not justice.
>
> Amy!
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:18 -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
>> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of
>> the bill. It says:
>>
>> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
>> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>>
>> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to
>> be RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
>> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell
>> camcorder grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>>
>> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
>> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>>
>> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
>> copyright material are by permission and which aren't.  It does
>> require the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary
>> purpose is to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but
>> that's not very hard.
>>
>> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
>> internet."
>>
>> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is
>> the essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
>> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
>> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise
>> violate the law, then don't.
>>
>> RB
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>>
>>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel
>>> Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>   wrote:
>>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
>>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>>>
>>>>            Noel
>> -- 
>> Richard Bennett
>>

-- 
Richard Bennett



From AMaitland at Commerco.Com  Sun Dec 18 22:29:09 2011
From: AMaitland at Commerco.Com (Alan Maitland)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:29:09 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
Message-ID: <4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>

My personal concern with the bill stems from the potential of its 
passage breaking the DNSSEC aspect of DNS, among other issues.

You might want to take a peek at:
http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201110/protecting-intellectual-property-good-mandatory-dns-filtering-bad

This blog article was written by one of the preeminent experts in DNS 
today, who is also the Chairman and Chief Scientist at ISC (the makers 
of [among other open source products] BIND, the most widely distributed 
and adopted DNS software on the planet), and who also remains an active 
force in protecting the interests of Internet security and function... 
clearly, a highly credible source.

Certainly, no concerned thinking people want to see unlawful commerce or 
intellectual property theft.  However, just so, no concerned thinking 
people want to see the advances in Internet security become broken as a 
consequence of laws being enacted which may be ill conceived or 
considered and that arguably impact only a relatively small, but vocal 
and seemingly rather litigious part of the online electronic commerce 
community.  Indeed, they appear a part of the community, who also seem 
to wish to use American tax payer money and resources to offset their 
own costs in fighting what appears should be their own fight.

Alan

On 12/18/2011 9:55 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the
> bill. It says:
>
> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>
> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to be
> RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell camcorder
> grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>
> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>
> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
> copyright material are by permission and which aren't. It does require
> the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary purpose is
> to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but that's not
> very hard.
>
> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
> internet."
>
> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is the
> essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise violate
> the law, then don't.
>
> RB
>
>
>
> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>
>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>>
>> -J
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with
>>> the
>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>>
>>> Noel
>



From tony.li at tony.li  Sun Dec 18 22:35:04 2011
From: tony.li at tony.li (Tony Li)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:35:04 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
Message-ID: <63E442F4-102F-4E4B-8C6C-2C00594B2379@tony.li>


No, but it does require service providers to block traffic based on a court order.  This is, in effect, conviction without due process.  Not to mention an inappropriate use of the Internet infrastructure.

Tony

On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:

> The bill, less amendments agreed to in committee on Thursday,  is here:
> 
> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf
> 
> If you're interested, read it and decide for yourself what it does. This amendment post-dates the drafting of the EFF letter you were asked to sign earlier. I think you will find that it does not declare that "the plaintiffs decide guilt."
> 
> In particular: no domain can be blacklisted without a court order, and no signed domain can be blacklisted at all.
> 
> RB
> 
> On 12/18/2011 9:44 PM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>> Tfu.
>> 
>> The bill provides a non-judicial means of action for holders of
>> "intellectual property."  The essence of american jurisprudence is that
>> it is *jurisprudence*, not private justice.  The holders of IP already
>> have tools for court-mandated and court-moderated handling of illegal
>> activity.  What they want is to bypass the unfortunate cost of going to
>> court, and this bill provides them that.
>> 
>> It's a horrible bill.  The writers have only the vaguest understanding
>> of the technical requirements and underpinning of the internet.  The
>> plaintiffs decide guilt.  This is not justice.
>> 
>> Amy!
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:18 -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
>>> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of
>>> the bill. It says:
>>> 
>>> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
>>> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>>> 
>>> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to
>>> be RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
>>> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell
>>> camcorder grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>>> 
>>> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
>>> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>>> 
>>> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
>>> copyright material are by permission and which aren't.  It does
>>> require the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary
>>> purpose is to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but
>>> that's not very hard.
>>> 
>>> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
>>> internet."
>>> 
>>> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is
>>> the essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
>>> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
>>> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise
>>> violate the law, then don't.
>>> 
>>> RB
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>>>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>>> 
>>>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>>>> 
>>>> -J
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel
>>>> Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>   wrote:
>>>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with the
>>>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>>>> 
>>>>>           Noel
>>> -- 
>>> Richard Bennett
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard Bennett
> 




From richard at bennett.com  Sun Dec 18 23:13:26 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:13:26 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com> <4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>
Message-ID: <16B70D06-7FD2-4E4D-B707-4968378F57CA@bennett.com>

The SOPA bill was amended Dec. 11th to address DNSSEC concerns subsequent to Vixie's Oct. 12th note (on a different bill, Protect IP) that you reference.

Richard Bennett


On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Alan Maitland <AMaitland at Commerco.Com> wrote:

> My personal concern with the bill stems from the potential of its passage breaking the DNSSEC aspect of DNS, among other issues.
> 
> You might want to take a peek at:
> http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201110/protecting-intellectual-property-good-mandatory-dns-filtering-bad
> 
> This blog article was written by one of the preeminent experts in DNS today, who is also the Chairman and Chief Scientist at ISC (the makers of [among other open source products] BIND, the most widely distributed and adopted DNS software on the planet), and who also remains an active force in protecting the interests of Internet security and function... clearly, a highly credible source.
> 
> Certainly, no concerned thinking people want to see unlawful commerce or intellectual property theft.  However, just so, no concerned thinking people want to see the advances in Internet security become broken as a consequence of laws being enacted which may be ill conceived or considered and that arguably impact only a relatively small, but vocal and seemingly rather litigious part of the online electronic commerce community.  Indeed, they appear a part of the community, who also seem to wish to use American tax payer money and resources to offset their own costs in fighting what appears should be their own fight.
> 
> Alan
> 
> On 12/18/2011 9:55 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
>> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the
>> bill. It says:
>> 
>> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
>> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>> 
>> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to be
>> RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
>> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell camcorder
>> grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>> 
>> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
>> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>> 
>> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
>> copyright material are by permission and which aren't. It does require
>> the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary purpose is
>> to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but that's not
>> very hard.
>> 
>> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
>> internet."
>> 
>> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is the
>> essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
>> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
>> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise violate
>> the law, then don't.
>> 
>> RB
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>> 
>>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>>> 
>>> -J
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with
>>>> the
>>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>>> 
>>>> Noel
>> 
> 



From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Mon Dec 19 00:18:44 2011
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:18:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
Message-ID: <20111219081844.B8AFE18C0A3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com>

    > The SOPA bill was amended Dec. 11th to address DNSSEC concerns

Well, that's certainly good news.

    > In particular: ... no signed domain can be blacklisted at all.

Excellent! That should definitely encourage the deployment of DNSSEC... :-)

	Noel


From tony.li at tony.li  Mon Dec 19 01:08:16 2011
From: tony.li at tony.li (Tony Li)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:08:16 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <20111219081844.B8AFE18C0A3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20111219081844.B8AFE18C0A3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <A3744036-2447-4851-9A26-1E3BC3102A60@tony.li>


On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

>> 
>> In particular: ... no signed domain can be blacklisted at all.
> 
> Excellent! That should definitely encourage the deployment of DNSSEC... :-)


Starting with Pirate Bay's friends...  ;-)

Tony



From vint at google.com  Mon Dec 19 01:22:55 2011
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:22:55 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>

has anyone seen the present state of the bill after two days of mark up?

If the action implied in the bill applies to a second level domain,
that could end up blocking far more than the portion of a web site
that is said to infringe - it still looks like a blunt instrument to
me.

v


On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:
> The bill, less amendments agreed to in committee on Thursday, ?is here:
>
> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf
>
> If you're interested, read it and decide for yourself what it does. This
> amendment post-dates the drafting of the EFF letter you were asked to sign
> earlier. I think you will find that it does not declare that "the plaintiffs
> decide guilt."
>
> In particular: no domain can be blacklisted without a court order, and no
> signed domain can be blacklisted at all.
>
> RB
>
>
> On 12/18/2011 9:44 PM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Tfu.
>>
>> The bill provides a non-judicial means of action for holders of
>> "intellectual property." ?The essence of american jurisprudence is that
>> it is *jurisprudence*, not private justice. ?The holders of IP already
>> have tools for court-mandated and court-moderated handling of illegal
>> activity. ?What they want is to bypass the unfortunate cost of going to
>> court, and this bill provides them that.
>>
>> It's a horrible bill. ?The writers have only the vaguest understanding
>> of the technical requirements and underpinning of the internet. ?The
>> plaintiffs decide guilt. ?This is not justice.
>>
>> Amy!
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:55:18 -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
>>> knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of
>>> the bill. It says:
>>>
>>> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
>>> domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>>>
>>> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to
>>> be RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
>>> unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell
>>> camcorder grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>>>
>>> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
>>> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>>>
>>> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
>>> copyright material are by permission and which aren't. ?It does
>>> require the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary
>>> purpose is to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but
>>> that's not very hard.
>>>
>>> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
>>> internet."
>>>
>>> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is
>>> the essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
>>> Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
>>> substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise
>>> violate the law, then don't.
>>>
>>> RB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>>>> SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>>>
>>>> http://wh.gov/DfY
>>>>
>>>> -J
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel
>>>> Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> ? wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with
>>>>> the
>>>>> operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break'
>>>>> DNSSEC.
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? Noel
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Bennett
>>>
>
> --
> Richard Bennett
>



From jmamodio at gmail.com  Mon Dec 19 03:47:15 2011
From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:47:15 -0600
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
Message-ID: <CAMzo+1aZpmS6O5w6VpsEPBYSTO0UKgKA88tV4c+h9cV_1P2o0g@mail.gmail.com>

I respect your opinion but I didn't intend to open a discussion about
the merits or demerits of SOPA or similar legislation, I was just
reporting on the existence of a petition created on the WH website.

But I strongly and respectfully disagree about judging the character
or beliefs of people that sign or not any petition.

BTW, after seeing the image linked by such page I'm not quite sure
about the seriousness of it.

-J

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:
> Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without knowing
> what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the bill. It
> says:
>
> "It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov domain
> on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>
> Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to be
> RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to unlawful
> commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell camcorder grabs of
> newly released movies without a license.
>
> "It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
> copyrighted material are done with permission."
>
> SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to copyright
> material are by permission and which aren't. ?It does require the operators
> of UGC site to know whether the site's primary purpose is to sell
> copyrighted material without a license or not, but that's not very hard.
>
> "This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
> internet."
>
> If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is the
> essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the Internet,"
> sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has substantial legitimate
> uses that don't kill people or otherwise violate the law, then don't.
>
> RB



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 19 04:28:10 2011
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:28:10 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com> <4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>
Message-ID: <a06240822cb14d9b59ae0@[10.0.1.26]>

A couple of comments:

1)  Blocking sites for minor infractions. (I can't confirm a single 
incident caused a site to be blocked but I doubt it was very many). 
Comcast has regularly blocked mail not for the White House domain but 
the European Commission domain and the domains of more than one EC 
member.

2)  The tendency these days to appeal to the authority of an author, 
rather than to the argument and the facts, is the anathema of 
scientific discipline.  This tendency leads to stagnation and 
demagoguery, shouting down counter arguments rather than addressing 
them.  It is seldom the case that crucial ideas come from the 
authorities and often quite the opposite.  Sometimes  even a lowly 
Swiss patent examiner.  These sorts of arguments may be the stock and 
trade of Fox News, but they have no place here.

3)  This sort of discussion is precisely why we have the system we 
started with although questionable whether it still functions that 
way.  And why it *must* resemble making sausage.

Is "a couple" limited to 2?  ;-)

At 23:29 -0700 2011/12/18, Alan Maitland wrote:
>My personal concern with the bill stems from the potential of its 
>passage breaking the DNSSEC aspect of DNS, among other issues.
>
>You might want to take a peek at:
>http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201110/protecting-intellectual-property-good-mandatory-dns-filtering-bad
>
>This blog article was written by one of the preeminent experts in 
>DNS today, who is also the Chairman and Chief Scientist at ISC (the 
>makers of [among other open source products] BIND, the most widely 
>distributed and adopted DNS software on the planet), and who also 
>remains an active force in protecting the interests of Internet 
>security and function... clearly, a highly credible source.
>
>Certainly, no concerned thinking people want to see unlawful 
>commerce or intellectual property theft.  However, just so, no 
>concerned thinking people want to see the advances in Internet 
>security become broken as a consequence of laws being enacted which 
>may be ill conceived or considered and that arguably impact only a 
>relatively small, but vocal and seemingly rather litigious part of 
>the online electronic commerce community.  Indeed, they appear a 
>part of the community, who also seem to wish to use American tax 
>payer money and resources to offset their own costs in fighting what 
>appears should be their own fight.
>
>Alan
>
>On 12/18/2011 9:55 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>Yes, and just like the EFF letter that some people signed without
>>knowing what's in the SOPA bill, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the
>>bill. It says:
>>
>>"It would be ridiculous for an ISP to block the entire whitehouse.gov
>>domain on court order because a single user posted a link. "
>>
>>Yes, that would be ridiculous, but SOPA doesn't permit any domain to be
>>RPZ'ed on such a thin pretext. The domain has to be dedicated to
>>unlawful commerce, like The Pirate Bay or the sites that sell camcorder
>>grabs of newly released movies without a license.
>>
>>"It is difficult for any web administrator to know which links to
>>copyrighted material are done with permission."
>>
>>SOPA doesn't require any web administrator to know which links to
>>copyright material are by permission and which aren't. It does require
>>the operators of UGC site to know whether the site's primary purpose is
>>to sell copyrighted material without a license or not, but that's not
>>very hard.
>>
>>"This will kill the free flow of information and conversation on the
>>internet."
>>
>>If you believe that the sale of bogus drugs and unlicensed movies is the
>>essence of the "free flow of information and conversation on the
>>Internet," sign the petition. If you believe the Internet has
>>substantial legitimate uses that don't kill people or otherwise violate
>>the law, then don't.
>>
>>RB
>>
>>
>>
>>On 12/18/2011 7:37 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>There is now a petition on the WH website asking the President to veto
>>>SOPA in the event it passes Congress approval.
>>>
>>>http://wh.gov/DfY
>>>
>>>-J
>>>
>>>On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Noel Chiappa<jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>>>wrote:
>>>>FYI. I hope many (most?) here can sign: the attempt to interfere with
>>>>the
>>>>operation of DNS is particularly problematic, as it will 'break' DNSSEC.
>>>>
>>>>Noel



From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Dec 19 04:42:37 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:42:37 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> has anyone seen the present state of the bill after two days of mark up?

Present state is here <http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html>

The "Manager's Amendment" is the base admendment, and there are have been four
voice votes and one roll vote which have passed and therefore have modified the 
base amendment.  Text of all motions to amend and disposition are on the website.

At present, the bill provides for domestic ISPs to be required by "order" to 
block (via DNS filtering or other means) websites or portions of websites from 
being accessed by their domestic customers.  It enables government to order an 
otherwise uninvolved party (the ISP) to interfere with the communications of
its customers for the presumed financial benefit of third-party content owners.
Depending how one reads the text, such orders either require the decision of 
the US Attny Gen or decision of a federal court, and attempts to clarify 
this point via amendment have failed repeatedly during the markup process.

FYI,
/John





From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Dec 19 05:19:01 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:19:01 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>

Keith - 
 
  Government has certain functions that it has to perform (including law 
  enforcement), but generally those tasks are performed with respect to
  "real world entities" such as people and businesses.  It's perfectly 
  reasonable for government to be able to request and obtain the legal 
  parties that were involved in a given communication (even if the answer 
  is nothing more detailed than valid legal contact for a university or
  women's shelter network or whistleblowers non-profit....)  When parties 
  in multiple jurisdictions are communicating, it's particularly important 
  that governments are involved, since there may be very different views 
  about free speech, due process, fair use, libel, etc.)

  We've completed failed to provide a framework which allows governments
  to identify parties and hence use their existing mechanisms (e.g. courts, 
  diplomacy) when it comes to the Internet, and we should not be surprised 
  therefore at government attempts to more directly control communications.  
 
  It's a shame, since if we had provided better mechanisms, then the inability 
  for the US government to obtain cooperation to identify and shutdown a given
  foreign website streaming US-illegal content would much more clearly be seen
  as an actual failure of common values & diplomacy rather than "a problem with 
  the Internet" per se.

/John
 

On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> I'm concerned about anything that requires ISPs to impose interception proxies (DNS or HTTP or anything else) on customer traffic.   Interception proxies cause too many problems already.  They need to be eradicated rather than enshrined in law.
> 
> I'd also be concerned about anything that would view a customer's using an alternate DNS server (or other name lookup service) as "circumvention".  The Internet community needs the ability to develop better alternatives to DNS while still retaining compatibility with the DNS name space.
> 
> Keith
> 
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:42 AM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> 
>>> has anyone seen the present state of the bill after two days of mark up?
>> 
>> Present state is here <http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html>
>> 
>> The "Manager's Amendment" is the base admendment, and there are have been four
>> voice votes and one roll vote which have passed and therefore have modified the 
>> base amendment.  Text of all motions to amend and disposition are on the website.
>> 
>> At present, the bill provides for domestic ISPs to be required by "order" to 
>> block (via DNS filtering or other means) websites or portions of websites from 
>> being accessed by their domestic customers.  It enables government to order an 
>> otherwise uninvolved party (the ISP) to interfere with the communications of
>> its customers for the presumed financial benefit of third-party content owners.
>> Depending how one reads the text, such orders either require the decision of 
>> the US Attny Gen or decision of a federal court, and attempts to clarify 
>> this point via amendment have failed repeatedly during the markup process.
>> 
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 




From nigel at channelisles.net  Mon Dec 19 05:33:53 2011
From: nigel at channelisles.net (Nigel Roberts)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:33:53 +0000
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>

Obviously, this is a Bill of the United States, not the United Kingdom 
or any other European country.

But, purely for comparison if there were legislation in Europe that (to 
borrow Vint's elegant formulation) "that could end up blocking far more 
than the portion of a web site that is said to infringe".

Such actions by a Government would therefore appear clearly to be an 
impermissible infringement of the right to free expression set out in 
the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 
and thereby in most European states would be unlawful. (You would 
probably say 'unconstitutional').

Even if the test of necessity were passed, it would fail the test of 
proportionality. If this were an English Bill, it would appear to be 
susceptible to a legal challenge claimng a Declaration of Incompatibility.

And given the number of European companies and individuals using 
American domain names (which is really what gTLDs are), this is of some 
significant concern.

But this is all off the topic of Internet History, a bit, isn't it?


On 12/19/2011 09:22 AM, Vint Cerf wrote about the proposed legislation:

> that could end up blocking far more than the portion of a web site


From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Dec 19 05:57:54 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:57:54 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
Message-ID: <FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:

> Obviously, this is a Bill of the United States, not the United Kingdom or any other European country.
> 
> But, purely for comparison if there were legislation in Europe that (to borrow Vint's elegant formulation) "that could end up blocking far more than the portion of a web site that is said to infringe".
> 
> Such actions by a Government would therefore appear clearly to be an impermissible infringement of the right to free expression set out in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and thereby in most European states would be unlawful. (You would probably say 'unconstitutional').
> 
> Even if the test of necessity were passed, it would fail the test of proportionality. If this were an English Bill, it would appear to be susceptible to a legal challenge claimng a Declaration of Incompatibility.

Unfortunately, the bill proponents have foreseen such challenges and one 
of the amendments already adopted now limits the scope of the relief to 
that of the infringement: 

<http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/12162011Goodlatte%20Amdt28%20-%20PASSED.pdf>

> And given the number of European companies and individuals using American domain names (which is really what gTLDs are), this is of some significant concern.
> 
> But this is all off the topic of Internet History, a bit, isn't it?

Yes.
/John





From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 06:08:56 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:08:56 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <a06240822cb14d9b59ae0@[10.0.1.26]>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com> <4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>
	<a06240822cb14d9b59ae0@[10.0.1.26]>
Message-ID: <4EEF4578.3040808@dcrocker.net>



On 12/19/2011 4:28 AM, John Day wrote:
> s "a couple" limited to 2? ;-)


Not in an open marriage.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 06:28:36 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:28:36 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>


On 12/19/2011 5:19 AM, John Curran wrote:
>    We've completed failed to provide a framework which allows governments
>    to identify parties and hence use their existing mechanisms
...
>    It's a shame, since if we had provided better mechanisms,
...


Some form of this criticism is regularly made by different people, about various 
Internet mechanisms.

It suffers from a degree of factual accuracy while being entirely misleading.

Its premise is that the cited problem would not exist, had the early development 
effort merely attended to the need.  That is, it presumes that solutions to such 
concerns are/were technically available, well-understood, highly effective, and 
would have been likely to obtain community consensus.

None of those 4 conditions actually applied or even apply now(!)

At base, these problems derive from entirely social problems and they have had 
limited-to-no solution outside of the Internet context, that is, in the "real" 
world.  So we need considerably more caution is falling back on the generic 
criticism.

At the least, any such criticism needs to:

      1. Describe the solution that could then have been applied.

      2. Explain the basis for claiming that such a solution was 
well-understood, highly effective AND has a strong base of consensus.

      3. Explain the basis for believing that what would have worked back "then" 
would still work.


d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From vint at google.com  Mon Dec 19 06:33:47 2011
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:33:47 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
	<FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggcNbtJytUzMFTw2hmVvizQtUOLfLHZgtPDjPzQG1wY3cA@mail.gmail.com>

The quote below makes implementation totally problematic, certainly at
the resolver level or DNS server level:

[Unfortunately, the bill proponents have foreseen such challenges and one
of the amendments already adopted now limits the scope of the relief to
that of the infringement:]

<http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/12162011Goodlatte%20Amdt28%20-%20PASSED.pdf>

These people have NO CLUE how the Internet works. I am particularly
unhappy with the fact that this amendment comes from Bob Goodlatte.

v


From nigel at channelisles.net  Mon Dec 19 06:57:18 2011
From: nigel at channelisles.net (Nigel Roberts)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:57:18 +0000
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF4578.3040808@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>	<a06240822cb14d9b59ae0@[10.0.1.26]>
	<4EEF4578.3040808@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <4EEF50CE.4080207@channelisles.net>

A 'couple' is by definition two (of anything) and two only except when 
means a link between two things (as in a chain).



Nigel




On 12/19/2011 02:08 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/2011 4:28 AM, John Day wrote:
>> s "a couple" limited to 2? ;-)
>
>
> Not in an open marriage.
>
> d/


From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 07:25:06 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:25:06 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcNbtJytUzMFTw2hmVvizQtUOLfLHZgtPDjPzQG1wY3cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
	<FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggcNbtJytUzMFTw2hmVvizQtUOLfLHZgtPDjPzQG1wY3cA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEF5752.2090000@dcrocker.net>



On 12/19/2011 6:33 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> These people have NO CLUE how the Internet works. I am particularly
> unhappy with the fact that this amendment comes from Bob Goodlatte.


(Lack of clue appears to be common in these types of policy activities. Note 
that it's difficult for non-techies to know the technical details of a complex, 
large-scale service.  In the run-up to ICANN formation, there was a US Gov't 
cross-agency working group trying to formulate recommendations for the future 
handling of Internet registration issues -- that is, the stuff that is now 
covered by ICANN.  I was on the IAHC, a committee active at the time to 
formulate a proposal for new gTLDs.  So we met with the cross-agency committee 
repeatedly.  They met for about a year and towards the end I discovered that 
none of the members actually understood DNS technology.  We quickly organized a 
tutorial by Mockapetris, Vixie, etc.  I have no idea how much that helped...)


It occurs to me that it might be helpful to formulate a non-technical 
description of the technical details that are being mandated.  That is, 
formulate a statement by technical experts that describe the specific changes in 
Internet operation and use that would be required by SOPA. The formulation would 
target a non-technical audience.

The open letter that was signed by 83 folk was generic.  It was a statement 
against policy by a collection of long-time techies, but it had no specifics.

I'm suggesting a follow-on that would be a little like a product data-sheet, in 
that it would define specific usage and functional changes, and could also be 
signed by technical experts.  The existing open letter was an opinion letter. 
This would be a factual letter.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From bernie at fantasyfarm.com  Mon Dec 19 07:36:24 2011
From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:36:24 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF50CE.4080207@channelisles.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>,
	<4EEF4578.3040808@dcrocker.net>,
	<4EEF50CE.4080207@channelisles.net>
Message-ID: <4EEF59F8.23884.1528E6E4@bernie.fantasyfarm.com>

On 19 Dec 2011 at 14:57, Nigel Roberts wrote:

> A 'couple' is by definition two (of anything) and two only except when 
> means a link between two things (as in a chain).

Well, this is super off-topic, but 'by definition' claims are always 
pedantic and often wrong.  "couple" has also meant "a few" or "a small 
number" for quite some time.  As in "We've only gone to the movies a 
couple of times this month".

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--       





From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 19 08:02:34 2011
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:02:34 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF50CE.4080207@channelisles.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>	<4EEED9B5.5030404@Commerco.Com>
	<a06240822cb14d9b59ae0@[10.0.1.26]>	<4EEF4578.3040808@dcrocker.net>
	<4EEF50CE.4080207@channelisles.net>
Message-ID: <a0624082bcb150ece0d2a@[10.0.1.26]>

It was a joke.

An allusion with meaning only to me, to the inconsistency we often 
find in documents by engineers, where the contexts don't match the 
title, or the frontspiece to the first collection of Shoe cartoons 
that had Shoe standing on a branch, cigar firmly clenched in his 
bill, saying some thing close to, "To make this book easier to read, 
it has been divided into 3 sections, 1, 2, and c."

Or it was the allusion to the Monty Python cliche, that says always 
goes there are "two good reasons for . . ." but before the speaker 
finishes he thinks of 3 and so it goes!

At the time, there many examples of that.

Yes, couple should be two, as in coupling train cars, but I am afraid 
Bernie is right, the language keeps getting sloppy, think of how 
"architecture" means something built to an architecture rather than 
the class; or how topology is suppose to mean graph, rather than a 
mapping that preserves an invariance, one could go on and on.

At 14:57 +0000 2011/12/19, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>A 'couple' is by definition two (of anything) and two only except 
>when means a link between two things (as in a chain).
>
>
>
>Nigel
>
>
>
>
>On 12/19/2011 02:08 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 12/19/2011 4:28 AM, John Day wrote:
>>>s "a couple" limited to 2? ;-)
>>
>>
>>Not in an open marriage.
>>
>>d/



From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 08:07:23 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:07:23 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF59F8.23884.1528E6E4@bernie.fantasyfarm.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>,
	<4EEF4578.3040808@dcrocker.net>,
	<4EEF50CE.4080207@channelisles.net>
	<4EEF59F8.23884.1528E6E4@bernie.fantasyfarm.com>
Message-ID: <4EEF613B.7020805@dcrocker.net>


>> A 'couple' is by definition two (of anything) and two only except when
>> means a link between two things (as in a chain).
>
> Well, this is super off-topic, but 'by definition' claims are always
> pedantic and often wrong.  "couple" has also meant "a few" or "a small
> number" for quite some time.  As in "We've only gone to the movies a
> couple of times this month".


Vernacular usage is often highly imprecise.  It's one of the processes that 
produces changes in definition, over time.

That doesn't make a current definition wrong, since a current definition 
provides a basis for careful and precise language usage.

However it does mean that a discussion of meaning needs to be precise about the 
requirement for precision...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Dec 19 09:41:25 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:41:25 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> It suffers from a degree of factual accuracy while being entirely misleading.

No intent to be misleading... 

> Its premise is that the cited problem would not exist, had the early development effort merely attended to the need.

That's not my premise.

> That is, it presumes that solutions to such concerns are/were technically available, well-understood, highly effective, and would have been likely to obtain community consensus.
> 
> None of those 4 conditions actually applied or even apply now(!)
> At base, these problems derive from entirely social problems and they have had limited-to-no solution outside of the Internet context, that is, in the "real" world.  

Please reread my note: I noted that the benefit of having such mechanisms 
in this case *is not that they would be useful* as a solution, but that 
they would serve to highlight that the  underlying problems are the result 
of "actual failure of common values & diplomacy" (i.e. or as you put it,
derived from entirely social problems)

/John






From richard at bennett.com  Mon Dec 19 12:35:28 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:35:28 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEF5752.2090000@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
	<FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggcNbtJytUzMFTw2hmVvizQtUOLfLHZgtPDjPzQG1wY3cA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF5752.2090000@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <4EEFA010.9040400@bennett.com>

The main question that the lawmakers considering SOPA and PROTECT-IP 
need an answer to pertains to the effect of mandating domain filtering 
on the deployment of DNSSEC. The EFF's letter is being waved around in 
committee as "proof" that SOPA will somehow undermine DNSSEC or impede 
its eventual deployment, as in "these 83 security experts say that this 
bill threatens the security of the Internet."

The implications of adopting a law that requires U. S. ISPs to alter 
their response to certain DNS lookups depends to a great extent on the 
expected user response to a lookup failure, which is a very interesting 
discussion but not really technical.

To me, the more interesting question is whether there's a direct 
conflict between DNS filtering and the DNS itself. The bill is based on 
the RPZ feature in BIND9 that allows a DNS administrator to attach 
policy to DNS queries. This feature is controversial in some quarters in 
its own right, but there's not much of an issue with its current 
implementation and DNSSEC. When BIND9 finds a user looking up a signed 
domain, it simply bypasses the RPZ logic and gives a straight answer.

The intent of SOPA is to have it follow the RPZ implementation, and 
Congress needs to know whether doing so undermines Internet security, 
impedes the deployment of DNSSEC, or threatens the Internet or DNS in 
some way.

The alternative to DNS-level filtering is to have ISPs use ACLs to block 
access to particular subdomains or even smaller units. That seems a bit 
problematic from and overhead perspective so I'd rather not go there. 
That seems to be going on in the Goodlatte amendment.

Anyhow, I'm interested in the topic, and if this isn't the most 
appropriate venue for discussing it, I'm happy to move the discussion 
somewhere else.

Thanks

On 12/19/2011 7:25 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/2011 6:33 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> These people have NO CLUE how the Internet works. I am particularly
>> unhappy with the fact that this amendment comes from Bob Goodlatte.
>
>
> (Lack of clue appears to be common in these types of policy 
> activities. Note that it's difficult for non-techies to know the 
> technical details of a complex, large-scale service.  In the run-up to 
> ICANN formation, there was a US Gov't cross-agency working group 
> trying to formulate recommendations for the future handling of 
> Internet registration issues -- that is, the stuff that is now covered 
> by ICANN.  I was on the IAHC, a committee active at the time to 
> formulate a proposal for new gTLDs.  So we met with the cross-agency 
> committee repeatedly.  They met for about a year and towards the end I 
> discovered that none of the members actually understood DNS 
> technology.  We quickly organized a tutorial by Mockapetris, Vixie, 
> etc.  I have no idea how much that helped...)
>
>
> It occurs to me that it might be helpful to formulate a non-technical 
> description of the technical details that are being mandated.  That 
> is, formulate a statement by technical experts that describe the 
> specific changes in Internet operation and use that would be required 
> by SOPA. The formulation would target a non-technical audience.
>
> The open letter that was signed by 83 folk was generic.  It was a 
> statement against policy by a collection of long-time techies, but it 
> had no specifics.
>
> I'm suggesting a follow-on that would be a little like a product 
> data-sheet, in that it would define specific usage and functional 
> changes, and could also be signed by technical experts.  The existing 
> open letter was an opinion letter. This would be a factual letter.
>
> d/

-- 
Richard Bennett



From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 14:57:17 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:57:17 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>



On 12/19/2011 9:41 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> It suffers from a degree of factual accuracy while being entirely
>> misleading.
>
> No intent to be misleading...

Of course not.  Folks who make these sorts of statements are as mislead as those
who hear and believe them.


>> Its premise is that the cited problem would not exist, had the early
>> development effort merely attended to the need.
>
> That's not my premise.

To some extent it is, though perhaps a bit more circuitously for your comment 
than for most.  (See below.)


>> That is, it presumes that solutions to such concerns are/were technically
>> available, well-understood, highly effective, and would have been likely to
>> obtain community consensus.
>>
>> None of those 4 conditions actually applied or even apply now(!) At base,
>> these problems derive from entirely social problems and they have had
>> limited-to-no solution outside of the Internet context, that is, in the
>> "real" world.
>
> Please reread my note:

Alas, I doubt that a fourth reading would produce better reading comprehension 
than the 3 done before posting my note...


 >   I noted that the benefit of having such mechanisms in
> this case *is not that they would be useful* as a solution, but that they
> would serve to highlight that the  underlying problems are the result of
> "actual failure of common values&  diplomacy" (i.e. or as you put it, derived
> from entirely social problems)

Telephonic and postal communications do not require identification of the person 
originating the communication nor even of the person receiving ("identify 
parties", per your note.)

Diligent diplomancy could, I suppose, produce restrictions on /all/ 
communications to require formal identification of the the parties, but we 
haven't done that for postal or telephonic, so it would be difficult to justify 
for Internet-based.  It would, after all, produce a rather horrible world to 
live in.

As for my earlier "See below", I think the underlying assumption I claim still 
applies.  The meaning I take from your assumption about highlighting is that the 
"failure" you cite is special to the Internet and/or is solvable, neither of 
which is correct.  Perhaps you meant something else?

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 15:23:08 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:23:08 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEFA010.9040400@bennett.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
	<FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggcNbtJytUzMFTw2hmVvizQtUOLfLHZgtPDjPzQG1wY3cA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF5752.2090000@dcrocker.net> <4EEFA010.9040400@bennett.com>
Message-ID: <4EEFC75C.1040407@dcrocker.net>


On 12/19/2011 12:35 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> The main question that the lawmakers considering SOPA and PROTECT-IP need an
> answer to pertains to the effect of mandating domain filtering on the deployment
> of DNSSEC.

While that's clearly a major concern, I would have thought basic questions of 
cost/benefit would be primary.

What actual efficacy is likely, what is the actual effort required, and what are 
the other likely problems, besides DNSSec, both technical and social?

And, then, what are the justifications for those claims?  For example, what 
related experiences are there that cause one to believe those benefits and problems?

These would strike me as being the "main" questions.  Concerns about DNSSec 
derive from that exercise.


> The EFF's letter is being waved around in committee as "proof" that
> SOPA will somehow undermine DNSSEC or impede its eventual deployment, as in
> "these 83 security experts say that this bill threatens the security of the
> Internet."

You mean that a paper signed by more than 80 experts who have direct experience 
with the relevant technologies and services, over many years, should be ignored?


> The implications of adopting a law that requires U. S. ISPs to alter their
> response to certain DNS lookups depends to a great extent on the expected user
> response to a lookup failure, which is a very interesting discussion but not
> really technical.

Actually, we have some experience with such modifications to DNS behavior.  The 
results haven't been pretty.


> The intent of SOPA is to have it follow the RPZ implementation, and Congress

Oh?  That's it's "intent"?


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Dec 19 16:21:08 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:21:08 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> >   I noted that the benefit of having such mechanisms in
>> this case *is not that they would be useful* as a solution, but that they
>> would serve to highlight that the  underlying problems are the result of
>> "actual failure of common values&  diplomacy" (i.e. or as you put it, derived
>> from entirely social problems)
> 
> Telephonic and postal communications do not require identification of the person originating the communication nor even of the person receiving ("identify parties", per your note.)

Actually, international telephony provides exactly that information, 
including number identification services as required by the ITU 
International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs).

> Diligent diplomancy could, I suppose, produce restrictions on /all/ communications to require formal identification of the the parties, but we haven't done that for postal or telephonic, so it would be difficult to justify for Internet-based.  It would, after all, produce a rather horrible world to live in.

See above; required already for telephony by ITU-T E.157.

> As for my earlier "See below", I think the underlying assumption I claim still applies.  The meaning I take from your assumption about highlighting is that the "failure" you cite is special to the Internet and/or is solvable, neither of which is correct.  Perhaps you meant something else?

I meant exactly what I wrote: If the Internet we had provided better mechanisms
(as we presently have with telephony) then the inability for the US government 
to obtain cooperation to identify and shutdown a given foreign website streaming
US-illegal content would much more clearly be seen as an actual failure of common 
values & diplomacy rather than "a problem with the Internet" per se.  

We have mechanisms which work fine for telephony: if you receive death threats 
via an international caller, there is actual law enforcement protocols to deal 
with such.  While its theoretically possible that one could hunt down an overseas 
mail-order pharmacy or cloned DVD distributer via the same records, it's simply
not going to happen in jurisdictions where they don't see making copies or generics 
without license as an issue.  SOPA is trying to solve a problem of differing legal
priorities between countries for which we lack any solution (an issue completely 
independent of the Internet), and one which would much clearer if there were more 
formal identification of parties over the Internet.  Instead of talking about
"rogue websites", we'd be talking about the criminals running rogue websites in 
countries that won't pursue the violators in the presence of clear evidence.

In fact, if there were actually a pervasive Internet usage/accounting framework
deployed, we'd be dealing with a very different problem than SOPA... The ability
to definitively obtain who downloaded what content would have created enormous
pressure for after-the-fact billing and/or prosecution rather than controls on 
the distribution side.

/John






From richard at bennett.com  Mon Dec 19 16:27:09 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:27:09 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EEFC75C.1040407@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF3D41.4020108@channelisles.net>
	<FC2CC2A6-C64A-4521-A7EE-E6F9BA5DA6C6@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggcNbtJytUzMFTw2hmVvizQtUOLfLHZgtPDjPzQG1wY3cA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEF5752.2090000@dcrocker.net> <4EEFA010.9040400@bennett.com>
	<4EEFC75C.1040407@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <4EEFD65D.6090802@bennett.com>

I think it's good that Internet engineers have political opinions about 
the work that Congress is seeking to do with their rogue sites bills and 
that they're willing to share them. There's no question that our 
democracy works best with broad participation and good ideas from all 
quarters.  There are questions about the most efficient approaches for 
dealing with IPR problems, as well as the most just, fair, 
cost-effective and reasonable ones.

In your role as a security expert, Congress is especially interested in 
your opinion about the implications that domain blacklisting has for the 
hoped-for deployment of DNSSEC and advice on any measures they can take 
to support DNSSEC. That kind of advice is actually distinct from your 
general views on IPR, law enforcement, due process, jurisprudence, and 
the democratic process, however.

But I can't blame people for opining about the broad range of issues 
when they've been asked a very narrow question. That makes for fun 
debates, the invention of new/old principles, and alternate approaches 
that might be better. So whatever floats.

RB

On 12/19/2011 3:23 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2011 12:35 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> The main question that the lawmakers considering SOPA and PROTECT-IP 
>> need an
>> answer to pertains to the effect of mandating domain filtering on the 
>> deployment
>> of DNSSEC.
>
> While that's clearly a major concern, I would have thought basic 
> questions of cost/benefit would be primary.
>
> What actual efficacy is likely, what is the actual effort required, 
> and what are the other likely problems, besides DNSSec, both technical 
> and social?
>
> And, then, what are the justifications for those claims?  For example, 
> what related experiences are there that cause one to believe those 
> benefits and problems?
>
> These would strike me as being the "main" questions.  Concerns about 
> DNSSec derive from that exercise.
>
>
>> The EFF's letter is being waved around in committee as "proof" that
>> SOPA will somehow undermine DNSSEC or impede its eventual deployment, 
>> as in
>> "these 83 security experts say that this bill threatens the security 
>> of the
>> Internet."
>
> You mean that a paper signed by more than 80 experts who have direct 
> experience with the relevant technologies and services, over many 
> years, should be ignored?
>
>
>> The implications of adopting a law that requires U. S. ISPs to alter 
>> their
>> response to certain DNS lookups depends to a great extent on the 
>> expected user
>> response to a lookup failure, which is a very interesting discussion 
>> but not
>> really technical.
>
> Actually, we have some experience with such modifications to DNS 
> behavior.  The results haven't been pretty.
>
>
>> The intent of SOPA is to have it follow the RPZ implementation, and 
>> Congress
>
> Oh?  That's it's "intent"?
>
>
> d/

-- 
Richard Bennett



From paul at redbarn.org  Mon Dec 19 18:39:40 2011
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:39:40 +0000
Subject: [ih] Interesting correlation between RPZ and SOPA...
In-Reply-To: <list-20115465@execdsl.com>
References: <list-20115465@execdsl.com>
Message-ID: <4EEFF56C.5000302@redbarn.org>


> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:35:28 -0800
> From: Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com>
> To: internet-history at postel.org
>
> The main question that the lawmakers considering SOPA and PROTECT-IP
> need an answer to pertains to the effect of mandating domain filtering
> on the deployment of DNSSEC. The EFF's letter is being waved around in
> committee as "proof" that SOPA will somehow undermine DNSSEC or impede
> its eventual deployment, as in "these 83 security experts say that this
> bill threatens the security of the Internet."

i consider it a compelling argument, but as it contains no formal logic,
folks shouldn't refer to it as a "proof".

> The implications of adopting a law that requires U. S. ISPs to alter
> their response to certain DNS lookups depends to a great extent on the
> expected user response to a lookup failure, which is a very interesting
> discussion but not really technical.

that's... utterly... fantastical.

the response of the operating systems, libraries, and applications that
users on the internet will be running at the time that a mandated dns
response (or mandated nonresponse) occurs is both interesting AND
technical. and it's central to understanding whether the adoption of
SOPA or PIPA in its proposed form would preempt DNSSEC in the
marketplace. therefore it's the place we'd have to start any serious
inquiry.

assuming for the purpose of this message that you were not serious,
let's proceed.

> To me, the more interesting question is whether there's a direct
> conflict between DNS filtering and the DNS itself.

i am far less interested in this since it's a settled point, we can look
at what happens today and what has happened in the recent past and know,
simply know, no guessing or computation required, that there is no such
conflict. however this does nothing to inform the more serious inquiry
described above, which is DNSSEC preemption.

> The bill is based on
> the RPZ feature in BIND9 that allows a DNS administrator to attach
> policy to DNS queries. This feature is controversial in some quarters in
> its own right, but there's not much of an issue with its current
> implementation and DNSSEC. When BIND9 finds a user looking up a signed
> domain, it simply bypasses the RPZ logic and gives a straight answer.

i suspect that your mention of RPZ is what caused alan clegg (thanks
alan!) to forward me your message, which led me to subscribe to this
mailing list (thanks joe!). in response to the above, which is
nonsequitur to the real inquiry (which is: whether SOPA and PIPA would
have a preemptive effect on DNSSEC in the market), is in three parts.

first, if you're right that this bill really is based on RPZ, then i am
extremely impressed. RPZ came out in summer 2010 and for it to reach the
level of attention where authors of federal legislation in any country,
especially in the U.S., would be impacted by it, astounds me. i thought
it was a coincidence, as in, folks wanted to do this for a long time,
but they couldn't see mandating it if the only dns filtering in
existence was a commercial product (hello nominum!), and when RPZ came
out, it was sort of like a door opened, allowing in what had been
previously kept out.

second, in the manager's amendment to SOPA, allowance is made for an ISP
to "not resolve" which broadly means "don't answer at all, just time
out." i think this would be bad engineering, even if it wasn't politics
(and thus not engineering at all). but since RPZ is based on a rulesets
containing a lot of <trigger,action> tuples i'd like to state for the
record that no "action" triggerable by RPZ includes "just drop the
query, don't answer." so if the SOPA folks were really basing their bill
on RPZ, they've gone outside the box with the manager's amendment.

third, you're right, no signed answer is affected by RPZ at present.
this is a problem in the design, and we're still trying to figure out
what to do about it. if a bad guy with a bad domain can drive right
through the RPZ just by signing his bad domain, then that'll either make
DNSSEC very successful (since many domains are "throw aways" used only
for e-crime) or it will make RPZ a total failure. on the risk that
DNSSEC market success will not be the result of this missing feature in
RPZ, i feel like some better answer is needed. but one thing i won't be
putting into RPZ is a way to break DNSSEC -- as SOPA would require for
effectiveness. if SOPA and PIPA were to be revised to say that any
criminal who signs their infringing web site's domain name with DNSSEC
shall be exempt from blocking under this law, then we'd really have
something to talk about.

> The intent of SOPA is to have it follow the RPZ implementation, and
> Congress needs to know whether doing so undermines Internet security,
> impedes the deployment of DNSSEC, or threatens the Internet or DNS in
> some way.

as stated above, if SOPA is counting on RPZ, then the proposed law needs
to say "and if criminals sign their domain names then they will not be
blocked under this law" or it needs to refer explicitly to the RPZ
specification, online at:

https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00512/0

furthermore if they intend to be compatible with RPZ's actual
capabilities for unsigned domain names, they will have to state a
requirement that an unsigned NXDOMAIN, an unsigned CNAME, or an unsigned
replacement answer record set be sent in response to queries for domains
blocked under this law.

> The alternative to DNS-level filtering is to have ISPs use ACLs to block
> access to particular subdomains or even smaller units. That seems a bit
> problematic from and overhead perspective so I'd rather not go there.
> That seems to be going on in the Goodlatte amendment.

i don't know any ISP who has core (that is, the high speed stuff)
equipment capable of singling out DNS messages and doing a deep dive on
them and modifying those that contain subdomains of a hundred or so
(estimated by the SOPA proponents) parent domains. any requirement to do
this would run afoul of the "any reasonable technical measures" wording.
(this "technical measure" would never be "reasonable".)

> Anyhow, I'm interested in the topic, and if this isn't the most
> appropriate venue for discussing it, I'm happy to move the discussion
> somewhere else.

i'm new here and if this is off-topic then i hope to be forgiven my
unintentional trespass. certainly the name of this mailing list
(internet-history) does not sound inclusive of this topic. if this
thread moves elsewhere i will move with it.

paul


From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 19 19:40:19 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:40:19 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>


On 12/19/2011 4:21 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Telephonic and postal communications do not require identification of the person originating the communication nor even of the person receiving ("identify parties", per your note.)
>
> Actually, international telephony provides exactly that information,
> including number identification services as required by the ITU
> International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs).

Your original message referred to '"real world entities" such as people and 
businesses' and 'obtain the legal parties'.

Nothing that is done today for postal or telephone directly identifies people 
who are using the service, nevermind certifying the identification.  At best, 
what are identified are devices and places, and perhaps their owners.  For 
postal origination, the 'place' can merely be a post office.  Sometimes the 
information is useful, but it's a long way from identifying people.


> I meant exactly what I wrote: If the Internet we had provided better mechanisms
> (as we presently have with telephony)

Presumably a viable solution for the Internet is readily available and can 
operate without undue collateral downsides.  Please point to the specifications; 
some operational experience documentation would also be nice.

Absent those, you are offering a premise that lacks the texture of practical 
experience.  That is, it's theory.

In theory, there isn't much difference between theory and practice.  In practice...

And for anything involving social systems, it's worse.

I'm pressing the point because the tendency to rely on "if we had done" lines of 
commentary about the Internet -- or anything else involving complex social 
systems -- is a distraction from serious, careful, practical /present/ 
consideration, except for cases that meet the set of 4 conditions I cited in my 
previous note.

My own preference is to have this mailing list worry about pragmatics on matters 
such as government-imposed restriction of Internet behaviors.


 > then the inability for the US government
> to obtain cooperation to identify and shutdown a given foreign website streaming
> US-illegal content would much more clearly be seen as an actual failure of common
> values&  diplomacy rather than "a problem with the Internet" per se.
> We have mechanisms which work fine for telephony: if you receive death threats
> via an international caller, there is actual law enforcement protocols to deal
> with such.

Death threats are the problem this proposed Internet restriction is about?

Let's make sure that the misbehaviors covered for the different services are 
equivalent.  I suspect that excessive marketing contacts over phone or postal 
mail are not all that trivial to shut down or necessarily identify...


> In fact, if there were actually a pervasive Internet usage/accounting framework
> deployed, we'd be dealing with a very different problem than SOPA... The ability
> to definitively obtain who downloaded what content would have created enormous
> pressure for after-the-fact billing and/or prosecution rather than controls on
> the distribution side.

What is unfortunate is the range of explanations for seeking to move more and 
more control into the network transport infrastructure, exactly contrary to the 
original design goal of the Internet (and in contrast with a core design 
characteristic of the Arpanet.)

It's really quite frustrating to see how easily the end-to-end arguments are 
being dismissed or, at least, undermined.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From richard at bennett.com  Mon Dec 19 22:19:35 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:19:35 -0800
Subject: [ih] Interesting correlation between RPZ and SOPA...
In-Reply-To: <4EF0209A.8070909@redbarn.org>
References: <list-20115465@execdsl.com> <4EEFF56C.5000302@redbarn.org>
	<4EF00632.2060504@bennett.com> <4EF0209A.8070909@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <4EF028F7.7040700@bennett.com>

I'm not sure that IH is interested in this, but in case they are, I'm 
forwarding.

I think the discussion is off in the weeds at this point so I'm stopping.

RB

On 12/19/2011 9:43 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 3:51 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> See comments in-line.
> ok. i'm not sure why you're responding privately; these issues deserve
> sunlight and oxygen. feel free to share, including publication.
>
>> On 12/19/2011 6:39 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>>> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:35:28 -0800
>>>> From: Richard Bennett<richard at bennett.com>
>>>> To: internet-history at postel.org
>>>>
> ...
>
>>>> The implications of adopting a law that requires U. S. ISPs to alter
>>>> their response to certain DNS lookups depends to a great extent on the
>>>> expected user response to a lookup failure, which is a very interesting
>>>> discussion but not really technical.
>>> that's... utterly... fantastical.
>>>
>>> the response of the operating systems, libraries, and applications that
>>> users on the internet will be running at the time that a mandated dns
>>> response (or mandated nonresponse) occurs is both interesting AND
>>> technical. and it's central to understanding whether the adoption of
>>> SOPA or PIPA in its proposed form would preempt DNSSEC in the
>>> marketplace. therefore it's the place we'd have to start any serious
>>> inquiry.
>>>
>>> assuming for the purpose of this message that you were not serious,
>>> let's proceed.
>> There are facts to be had that help answer this question, most
>> significantly a Berkman Center study of user responses to DNS
>> filtering in the many nations that require it. Their survey finds that
>> 97% or so of affected parties don't engage in any circumvention
>> measures. [berk2010]
> that study does not answer this question. the question is, what happens
> when lookups fail? very little about circumvention tools is relevant in
> that discussion. circumvention happens in response to many other inputs.
> most of the time lookups succeed but tcp/ip to port 80 fails. the reason
> this question is technical (i'm disputing you here) is that much of the
> user's reaction depends on the application's, library's, and operating
> systems' reactions. and many of the things in the berkman report are
> related to circumvention of non-dns federal blocking systems.
>
>> If you think this is "utterly fantastical" I suggest you take it up
>> with the Berkman people.
> no, sir, i'm taking it up with you, because you claimed it was not a
> technical issue. it is a technical issue, and the technical issues will
> influence the non-technical ones, so, i claim that we have to study the
> technical issues first.
>
>>>> The bill is based on
>>>> the RPZ feature in BIND9 that allows a DNS administrator to attach
>>>> policy to DNS queries. This feature is controversial in some
>>>> quarters in
>>>> its own right, but there's not much of an issue with its current
>>>> implementation and DNSSEC. When BIND9 finds a user looking up a signed
>>>> domain, it simply bypasses the RPZ logic and gives a straight answer.
>>> ...
>>> first, if you're right that this bill really is based on RPZ, then i am
>>> extremely impressed. RPZ came out in summer 2010 and for it to reach the
>>> level of attention where authors of federal legislation in any country,
>>> especially in the U.S., would be impacted by it, astounds me. i thought
>>> it was a coincidence, as in, folks wanted to do this for a long time,
>>> but they couldn't see mandating it if the only dns filtering in
>>> existence was a commercial product (hello nominum!), and when RPZ came
>>> out, it was sort of like a door opened, allowing in what had been
>>> previously kept out.
>> The discussion about a bill of this type started in late 2009 when DNS
>> blackholes and Nominum were known phenomena. By the time the bill was
>> drafted, RPZ had validated DNS blacklisting and made it easy for the
>> drafters to include such a method.
> is this first hand knowledge on your part, or are you reading some
> calendar-related tea leaves here? rpz validates aligned-interests dns
> blocking, but does nothing to validate the goals or approach taken by
> PIPA or SOPA. if someone really did act the way you're describing, then
> they were fools or they were misled by their technical consultants.
>
>>> second, in the manager's amendment to SOPA, allowance is made for an ISP
>>> to "not resolve" which broadly means "don't answer at all, just time
>>> out." i think this would be bad engineering, even if it wasn't politics
>>> (and thus not engineering at all). but since RPZ is based on a rulesets
>>> containing a lot of<trigger,action>   tuples i'd like to state for the
>>> record that no "action" triggerable by RPZ includes "just drop the
>>> query, don't answer." so if the SOPA folks were really basing their bill
>>> on RPZ, they've gone outside the box with the manager's amendment.
>> No, there's more than that. The amended bill contains a stipulation
>> that the DNS providers don't have to do anything that would undermine
>> DNS Security. Whether they don't respond, respond with a signed
>> pointer to the AG's web site,  respond with Next Secure Domain, or
>> simply resolve the query is an exercise left to the reader. Congress
>> isn't writing the config files for the DNS providers at this stage.
> and yet "not respond" is not an RPZ feature, so if SOPA really is based
> on RPZ as a "reasonable measure" then SOPA is simply wrong to offer "not
> respond" as an option. and you should be in a position to know that
> "respond with Next Secure Domain" is not an option since the responding
> server will not possess the proper DNSSEC key for signing such a
> message. nor is "respond with a signed pointer to the AG's web site"
> since the responding server will not possess the key necessary for such
> a signature. "simply resolve the query" is outside the box since it does
> not comply with the law, unless you think an ISP could prevail in court
> if they say simply "there was no reasonable technical measure, so i did
> nothing." (i do not believe an ISP could prevail, since they could not
> afford the legal fees necessary to keep up with the MPAA people in terms
> of pretrial briefs and other filings.)
>
> what this means is not that i'm asking congress to write a config file,
> but rather, i am pointing out that there is no such possible config
> file; what congress is demanding here intersects rather badly with the
> null set. they may as well demand faster than light travel, because my
> answer would have the same form: "the laws of physics don't work that way."
>
>>> this is a problem in the design, and we're still trying to figure out
>>> what to do about it. if a bad guy with a bad domain can drive right
>>> through the RPZ just by signing his bad domain, then that'll either make
>>> DNSSEC very successful (since many domains are "throw aways" used only
>>> for e-crime) or it will make RPZ a total failure. on the risk that
>>> DNSSEC market success will not be the result of this missing feature in
>>> RPZ, i feel like some better answer is needed. but one thing i won't be
>>> putting into RPZ is a way to break DNSSEC -- as SOPA would require for
>>> effectiveness. if SOPA and PIPA were to be revised to say that any
>>> criminal who signs their infringing web site's domain name with DNSSEC
>>> shall be exempt from blocking under this law, then we'd really have
>>> something to talk about.
>> third, you're right, no signed answer is affected by RPZ at present.
>> Right, criminal domains and DNSSEC are on a collision course that will
>> need to be headed off in order for DNSSEC to live up to its claims. I
>> expect that can be done in a few different ways.
> this is nonresponsive, sir. congress has not said "if a bad guy signs
> their domain with DNSSEC then there is no need for ISP's to block access
> to that domain", and until they say that, they cannot use RPZ as an
> example of a "reasonable technical means" to comply with the law. this
> again is an intersection with the null set; it's a void concept; it's
> "crazy".
>
>>>> Congress needs to know whether doing so undermines Internet security,
>>>> impedes the deployment of DNSSEC, or threatens the Internet or DNS in
>>>> some way.
>>> The intent of SOPA is to have it follow the RPZ implementation, and
>>> as stated above, if SOPA is counting on RPZ, then the proposed law needs
>>> to say "and if criminals sign their domain names then they will not be
>>> blocked under this law" or it needs to refer explicitly to the RPZ
>>> specification, online at:
>>>
>>> https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00512/0
>>>
>>> furthermore if they intend to be compatible with RPZ's actual
>>> capabilities for unsigned domain names, they will have to state a
>>> requirement that an unsigned NXDOMAIN, an unsigned CNAME, or an unsigned
>>> replacement answer record set be sent in response to queries for domains
>>> blocked under this law.
>> Good idea, but they won't get any closer than a "such as." It's best
>> if Congress doesn't specify the code.
> as before i am not asking congress for source code, merely some set of
> constraints that does not have a null result. if you're right that they
> are basing their demands on the existence of RPZ then they are
> responsible for staying within the capabilities of RPZ. they have not
> done the latter so i claim that they have no claim on the former. please
> be responsive to my specific complaints and claims, as i am doing for yours.
>
>>>> access to particular subdomains or even smaller units. That seems a bit
>>>> problematic from and overhead perspective so I'd rather not go there.
>>>> That seems to be going on in the Goodlatte amendment.
>>> The alternative to DNS-level filtering is to have ISPs use ACLs to block
>>> i don't know any ISP who has core (that is, the high speed stuff)
>>> equipment capable of singling out DNS messages and doing a deep dive on
>>> them and modifying those that contain subdomains of a hundred or so
>>> (estimated by the SOPA proponents) parent domains. any requirement to do
>>> this would run afoul of the "any reasonable technical measures" wording.
>>> (this "technical measure" would never be "reasonable".)
>> I mean ACLs that block access to specific IP addresses, not to the DNS
>> messages. Routers can do that. BGP filtering would be another approach.
> you said "subdomains" which meant, to me, that you expected these ACL's
> to be DNS-aware. which is it?
>
> moreover, if congress intends to allow ISP's to block by IP address
> rather than by domain name, then how often must the ISP update their IP
> filters to account for changes in the domain name ->  ip address
> mappings? if a criminal changes their IP address a thousand times per
> day (as some criminals already do, so this would not be an innovation)
> then would ISP's be remiss in their compliance with the law if they only
> update their IP address ACL's once per day? be careful how you answer
> because you're either placing an infinite burden on a non-conspirator or
> you're allowing for the possibility that this whole package of law
> achieves no effective result and ends up either being "just for show" or
> being an historical joke.
>
> paul
>

-- 
Richard Bennett



From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Dec 20 03:40:24 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:40:24 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:40 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>> In fact, if there were actually a pervasive Internet usage/accounting framework
>> deployed, we'd be dealing with a very different problem than SOPA... The ability
>> to definitively obtain who downloaded what content would have created enormous
>> pressure for after-the-fact billing and/or prosecution rather than controls on
>> the distribution side.
> 
> What is unfortunate is the range of explanations for seeking to move more and more control into the network transport infrastructure, exactly contrary to the original design goal of the Internet (and in contrast with a core design characteristic of the Arpanet.)
> 
> It's really quite frustrating to see how easily the end-to-end arguments are being dismissed or, at least, undermined.

Dave - 
 
  An accurate common accounting framework does not necessarily move "more 
  and more control into the network transport infrastructure" nor does it 
  undermine "the end-to-end arguments" of Internet architecture.

  Failure to constructively engage with governments regarding their needs, 
  however, will result in damage to the Internet architecture as they adopt 
  initiatives (such as SOPA) to impose their requirements after the fact.

  The Internet is a remarkable success, and I believe that its history shows
  great respect for the requirements known at the time, but we'd be deluding 
  ourselves to state that all parties who have valid requirements for this
  global communication medium were actually at the table during its formation.

/John





From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Dec 20 06:02:03 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:02:03 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>

On Dec 20, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2011, at 6:40 AM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> Failure to constructively engage with governments regarding their needs, 
>> however, will result in damage to the Internet architecture as they adopt 
>> initiatives (such as SOPA) to impose their requirements after the fact.
> 
> Perhaps, but we also have long experience that says that at least governments will impose "needs" that are harmful to users (like the ability to censor traffic, or the ability to monitor everything that anyone does).  So given that government does have some legitimate needs where the Internet is concerned, what does "constructive engagement" look like?  

Directing them to participate standard developments and technical 
policy development activities to express their needs (e.g. IETF, 
ICANN, RIRs)  

Directing the Internet technical community to participate in the 
various Internet Governance activities, to help build frameworks of 
principles that reflect and respect to the nature of the Internet  
(e.g. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/58/49258588.pdf)

> I don't think it looks like cooperating with the US government when it wants to censor traffic, but not with other governments when they want to do so.   And once a mechanism for SOPA is in place, regardless of its ostensible purpose, it will be used to censor traffic.  I can't imagine that the USG would resist the temptation to block access to WikiLeaks, for example.

I wasn't suggesting cooperating with the USG with respect to SOPA;
I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
fail to proactively engage governments.  For example, if we had a 
pervasive Internet usage/accounting framework, it would be possible
now to argue for after-the-fact billing and/or prosecution. We did
not perceive that as a requirement, and can't retrofit it now, so 
it should be expected that governments will try to meet their needs 
instead via controls up-front on content distribution and access.

/John




From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Tue Dec 20 06:20:36 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:20:36 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>



On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
> fail to proactively engage governments.


John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that 
opposition constitutes a failure to engage.  The signed opposition note is a 
petition.  You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.

The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued 
willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the 
bill.

That's just bad technical policy.

The failure is with the sponsors.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Dec 20 12:19:42 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:19:42 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>

On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
>> fail to proactively engage governments.
> 
> John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that opposition constitutes a failure to engage.  The signed opposition note is a petition.  You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.
> 
> The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the bill.
> 
> That's just bad technical policy.

Dave - 

 Our failure to engage _years ago_ proactively with governments 
 regarding their needs has led to this outcome.  

 Do you feel the petition is constructive engagement regarding
 governments perceived needs in this area?  I am unable to find
 any suggestion therein of an alternative approach to solving the
 problem of "foreign infringing sites", nor even a suggestion of 
 meeting to seek an understanding of their views on the problem.

 Absence of these elements leads me to believe that the petition,
 while quite clear in its message, doesn't represent constructive
 engagement as much as "drawing battle lines".  It may or may not
 be an effective mechanism, but my point is one of Internet history
 in that we've never proactively sought out governments' requirements 
 for the Internet during its development into a global communication
 medium, and therefore we should not be surprised at government attempts
 to now more directly control communications in order to accomplish
 their perceived responsibilities.

/John




From vint at google.com  Tue Dec 20 17:37:57 2011
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:37:57 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>

I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
have committed to engage the technical community to look for
alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
some of you to engage.

vint



On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
>>> fail to proactively engage governments.
>>
>> John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that opposition constitutes a failure to engage. ?The signed opposition note is a petition. ?You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.
>>
>> The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the bill.
>>
>> That's just bad technical policy.
>
> Dave -
>
> ?Our failure to engage _years ago_ proactively with governments
> ?regarding their needs has led to this outcome.
>
> ?Do you feel the petition is constructive engagement regarding
> ?governments perceived needs in this area? ?I am unable to find
> ?any suggestion therein of an alternative approach to solving the
> ?problem of "foreign infringing sites", nor even a suggestion of
> ?meeting to seek an understanding of their views on the problem.
>
> ?Absence of these elements leads me to believe that the petition,
> ?while quite clear in its message, doesn't represent constructive
> ?engagement as much as "drawing battle lines". ?It may or may not
> ?be an effective mechanism, but my point is one of Internet history
> ?in that we've never proactively sought out governments' requirements
> ?for the Internet during its development into a global communication
> ?medium, and therefore we should not be surprised at government attempts
> ?to now more directly control communications in order to accomplish
> ?their perceived responsibilities.
>
> /John
>
>



From richard at bennett.com  Tue Dec 20 21:49:22 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:49:22 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41800DA7-36F0-4509-8E89-89998BB68F94@bennett.com>

That's a constructive approach. There is an element of Internet culture that regards itself and the Net as above the law (such as the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace") so extra-diligent engagement is needed just to overcome that. Not that I think PIPA is all that bad, mind you; there are a lot of problems with the ICE process, but that's a whole different story from refusing to resolve criminal domains.

Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow, ITIF


On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
> have committed to engage the technical community to look for
> alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
> or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
> some of you to engage.
> 
> vint
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>>> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
>>>> fail to proactively engage governments.
>>> 
>>> John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that opposition constitutes a failure to engage.  The signed opposition note is a petition.  You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.
>>> 
>>> The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the bill.
>>> 
>>> That's just bad technical policy.
>> 
>> Dave -
>> 
>>  Our failure to engage _years ago_ proactively with governments
>>  regarding their needs has led to this outcome.
>> 
>>  Do you feel the petition is constructive engagement regarding
>>  governments perceived needs in this area?  I am unable to find
>>  any suggestion therein of an alternative approach to solving the
>>  problem of "foreign infringing sites", nor even a suggestion of
>>  meeting to seek an understanding of their views on the problem.
>> 
>>  Absence of these elements leads me to believe that the petition,
>>  while quite clear in its message, doesn't represent constructive
>>  engagement as much as "drawing battle lines".  It may or may not
>>  be an effective mechanism, but my point is one of Internet history
>>  in that we've never proactively sought out governments' requirements
>>  for the Internet during its development into a global communication
>>  medium, and therefore we should not be surprised at government attempts
>>  to now more directly control communications in order to accomplish
>>  their perceived responsibilities.
>> 
>> /John
>> 
>> 
> 



From jmamodio at gmail.com  Tue Dec 20 22:06:31 2011
From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:06:31 -0600
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>

I believe what is really necessary, is some movement to reduce the
level of mistrust from both sides.

IMHO lack of dialog and engagement is a big issue, even if one tries
to engage and participate in a cooperative manner, the stakes are so
high and the money/profit driven engine is spinning so fast that it is
almost impossible in some circumstances obtain positive and effective
results.

It is really disappointing to see for example ICANN's GAC relationship
with the rest of the community, and vice versa. And the time it
requires to understand the context,  the issues and alternative
solutions becomes almost a full time job.

The DNS has been transformed in this huge monster billboard with so
many interests that every day Jon Postel's words about "rights" and
"ownership" vs "responsibilities" and "service" are slowly fading
away.

I agree with you Vint, the collective brain power of this community to
tackle a problem such as online piracy is huge, if somehow mutual
trust and understanding can be reached to work together.

I'm really concerned about the ripple effect any regulation such as
SOPA/PIPA may generate, if you are concerned about the lack of clue of
U.S. legislators, reality is worse in some developing countries. I'm
already seeing some changes where governments are trying to have a
tighter control of the DNS because it is ill perceived as one of the
key elements to control the flow of information on the net.

Here you have Goodlatte, there we have Badcoffee.

Cheers
Jorge

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
> have committed to engage the technical community to look for
> alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
> or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
> some of you to engage.
>
> vint


From nigel at channelisles.net  Wed Dec 21 01:22:01 2011
From: nigel at channelisles.net (Nigel Roberts)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:22:01 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EF1A539.7070509@channelisles.net>

You may count on my participation should you require it.


N.



--
Nigel Roberts, Esq.

On 12/21/2011 01:37 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
> have committed to engage the technical community to look for
> alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
> or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
> some of you to engage.
>
> vint
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, John Curran<jcurran at istaff.org>  wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>>> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
>>>> fail to proactively engage governments.
>>>
>>> John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that opposition constitutes a failure to engage.  The signed opposition note is a petition.  You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.
>>>
>>> The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the bill.
>>>
>>> That's just bad technical policy.
>>
>> Dave -
>>
>>   Our failure to engage _years ago_ proactively with governments
>>   regarding their needs has led to this outcome.
>>
>>   Do you feel the petition is constructive engagement regarding
>>   governments perceived needs in this area?  I am unable to find
>>   any suggestion therein of an alternative approach to solving the
>>   problem of "foreign infringing sites", nor even a suggestion of
>>   meeting to seek an understanding of their views on the problem.
>>
>>   Absence of these elements leads me to believe that the petition,
>>   while quite clear in its message, doesn't represent constructive
>>   engagement as much as "drawing battle lines".  It may or may not
>>   be an effective mechanism, but my point is one of Internet history
>>   in that we've never proactively sought out governments' requirements
>>   for the Internet during its development into a global communication
>>   medium, and therefore we should not be surprised at government attempts
>>   to now more directly control communications in order to accomplish
>>   their perceived responsibilities.
>>
>> /John
>>
>>
>
>


From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Dec 21 04:02:48 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:02:48 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <A71A67A0-6167-4EDF-83D2-CFCA2B4A464F@network-heretics.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<A71A67A0-6167-4EDF-83D2-CFCA2B4A464F@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <D863D079-067B-43DA-BD19-9C1008137C77@istaff.org>

On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> My strong impression was that many in the USG (specifically the Clinton administration) saw the Internet as an opportunity for a power grab by the US.   It's hardly surprising if Internet developers from all over the world didn't share that vision.

  
   Strange - we seem to be talking about history of two different Internets...

   The development and management of Internet has always had some form 
   of USG involvement, initial starting with direct funding for various
   development as well as funding for management of critical resources.  
   Over time, this evolved into grants of key developmental work, and 
   from direct oversight (ICCB, 'IAB', FNC) to open multi-stakeholder 
   governance structures (IAB, IETF)

   In fact, the US Government has consistently supported the transition 
   from top-down contracting vehicles to more open bottom-up processes 
   for Internet governance.   In the IP world, this included the 
   decentralization of the IP address management with the delegations 
   to RIPE NCC and APNIC, the approval to move the remaining IP address 
   management from NSI/InterNIC to ARIN in 1997.  In DNS, steps include 
   the formation of ICANN to provide a more international and open process 
   for DNS policy coordination as well as the expiration & replacement 
   of the ICANN JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments framework.

   If someone can point out another organization (other than the USG) which 
   has been more active in consciously releasing its control over the Internet 
   in preference to multistakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it.
   The evolution to fully free standing certainly is taking a long-time, 
   but that's as much about the maturity of ICANN and multiple new players
   anxiously wanting control in this space as it is about USG letting go.

   Even now, I would not ascribe the actions of a congressional committee 
   bending to corporate lobbying as the general aspirations of "The US 
   Government". It is amusing that the current Administration is now caught 
   having to simultaneously say "the rights of individuals to express their 
   views freely on the Internet are universal" (H. Clinton, Dec 2011) and
   yet disavow that such conflicts with the censorship inherent in SOPA, but 
   again one of those actually reflects long-standing USG policy and whereas
   the other is just an expression of lobbying funds in a pre-election year.

/John




From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Dec 21 04:55:20 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:55:20 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>

On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:

> I believe what is really necessary, is some movement to reduce the
> level of mistrust from both sides.
> 
> IMHO lack of dialog and engagement is a big issue, even if one tries
> to engage and participate in a cooperative manner, the stakes are so
> high and the money/profit driven engine is spinning so fast that it is
> almost impossible in some circumstances obtain positive and effective
> results.

Agreed.  For example, SOPA effectively asserts that "the government 
has the right to prevent party A from communicating in advance with 
any/every given party B if party A's communication is alleged to be 
illegal."

Regardless of whether we're talking about the Internet, or the
telephone, or a public square, the above belief in contrary to
many peoples values (including my own), and it appears almost 
impossible to reconcile with standing US policy of objecting to 
another country's policy to prevent communications of the media 
or the various activist citizens because it is illegal by the 
laws of that country.

Principled discussion of the issue would be enormously helpful,
but that doesn't occur in Congress unless the administration 
forces it to occur ("we can't effectively do our job in these
other areas if you undermine our principled position this way")
Alas, that is not occurring in this case, and so instead we must 
fight an inherently repugnant idea solely via its various legal 
and technical blemishes.

If someone wants to sit down and say "You have a right to not
have your content illegally reproduced all over the Internet so
let's brainstorm", you'll find there are many advocates of SOPA 
who are willing to constructively engage.  Attempting to do the 
same starting with the assertion that "Your business model is 
fundamentally flawed and you must change" obviously may not work
as well. The voice of the Internet technical community is being
perceived as overwhelmingly in that latter camp.

/John



From vint at google.com  Wed Dec 21 05:20:17 2011
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:20:17 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>

John,

in point of fact, the business models may well have to change or at
least, their implementation. Copying and distribution of digital
content is so easy (and not just on the net) that one has to figure
out different ways to render the copying and distribution unfruitful.

v


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
>> I believe what is really necessary, is some movement to reduce the
>> level of mistrust from both sides.
>>
>> IMHO lack of dialog and engagement is a big issue, even if one tries
>> to engage and participate in a cooperative manner, the stakes are so
>> high and the money/profit driven engine is spinning so fast that it is
>> almost impossible in some circumstances obtain positive and effective
>> results.
>
> Agreed. ?For example, SOPA effectively asserts that "the government
> has the right to prevent party A from communicating in advance with
> any/every given party B if party A's communication is alleged to be
> illegal."
>
> Regardless of whether we're talking about the Internet, or the
> telephone, or a public square, the above belief in contrary to
> many peoples values (including my own), and it appears almost
> impossible to reconcile with standing US policy of objecting to
> another country's policy to prevent communications of the media
> or the various activist citizens because it is illegal by the
> laws of that country.
>
> Principled discussion of the issue would be enormously helpful,
> but that doesn't occur in Congress unless the administration
> forces it to occur ("we can't effectively do our job in these
> other areas if you undermine our principled position this way")
> Alas, that is not occurring in this case, and so instead we must
> fight an inherently repugnant idea solely via its various legal
> and technical blemishes.
>
> If someone wants to sit down and say "You have a right to not
> have your content illegally reproduced all over the Internet so
> let's brainstorm", you'll find there are many advocates of SOPA
> who are willing to constructively engage. ?Attempting to do the
> same starting with the assertion that "Your business model is
> fundamentally flawed and you must change" obviously may not work
> as well. The voice of the Internet technical community is being
> perceived as overwhelmingly in that latter camp.
>
> /John
>



From paul at redbarn.org  Wed Dec 21 06:06:55 2011
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:06:55 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EF1E7FF.9060802@redbarn.org>

Robert Heinlein, writing as Dr. Pinero, wrote:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the
notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the
face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This
strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. *Neither
individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask
that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.*

  * /Life-Line/ (1939)

I think this would be a poor debating position in the SOPA or PIPA
discussions, but it does not seem factually wrong.

Paul

re:


On 12/21/2011 1:20 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> John,
>
> in point of fact, the business models may well have to change or at
> least, their implementation. Copying and distribution of digital
> content is so easy (and not just on the net) that one has to figure
> out different ways to render the copying and distribution unfruitful.
>
> v
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20111221/dc47a612/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Dec 21 06:19:13 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:19:13 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>

Vint - 

Their business models may indeed have to change...  However, we need to 
be very careful in dealing with the same requirements when presented by 
government as a proxy, since it not as clear that they will yield solely 
for our technical reasons, nor it is clear that they should in all cases.

For example, if you had a bill which specified SOPA-like measures entirely 
for the purposes of defeating child pornography, I might very well support
such a bill.  Yes, the measures would have technical issues, would be readily
subverted, the powers might be abused, etc...  but in the end, the need for
a very high deterrent to such crimes warrants all of the downsides (as a 
quick review of the adopted legislation in this area will demonstrate)

My particular system of principles doesn't put commercial disputes (party A 
is misusing party B's intellectual property) into the same category of offense,
but obviously there are others who feel just as pa$$ionately about copyright
crimes and thus assert SOPA is warranted despite the flaws.  Until we can 
provide them some other options, they'll continue implore government that 
the societal benefits of their heavy-handed approaches are equally valid.

/John

On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> John,
> 
> in point of fact, the business models may well have to change or at
> least, their implementation. Copying and distribution of digital
> content is so easy (and not just on the net) that one has to figure
> out different ways to render the copying and distribution unfruitful.
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe what is really necessary, is some movement to reduce the
>>> level of mistrust from both sides.
>>> 
>>> IMHO lack of dialog and engagement is a big issue, even if one tries
>>> to engage and participate in a cooperative manner, the stakes are so
>>> high and the money/profit driven engine is spinning so fast that it is
>>> almost impossible in some circumstances obtain positive and effective
>>> results.
>> 
>> Agreed.  For example, SOPA effectively asserts that "the government
>> has the right to prevent party A from communicating in advance with
>> any/every given party B if party A's communication is alleged to be
>> illegal."
>> 
>> Regardless of whether we're talking about the Internet, or the
>> telephone, or a public square, the above belief in contrary to
>> many peoples values (including my own), and it appears almost
>> impossible to reconcile with standing US policy of objecting to
>> another country's policy to prevent communications of the media
>> or the various activist citizens because it is illegal by the
>> laws of that country.
>> 
>> Principled discussion of the issue would be enormously helpful,
>> but that doesn't occur in Congress unless the administration
>> forces it to occur ("we can't effectively do our job in these
>> other areas if you undermine our principled position this way")
>> Alas, that is not occurring in this case, and so instead we must
>> fight an inherently repugnant idea solely via its various legal
>> and technical blemishes.
>> 
>> If someone wants to sit down and say "You have a right to not
>> have your content illegally reproduced all over the Internet so
>> let's brainstorm", you'll find there are many advocates of SOPA
>> who are willing to constructively engage.  Attempting to do the
>> same starting with the assertion that "Your business model is
>> fundamentally flawed and you must change" obviously may not work
>> as well. The voice of the Internet technical community is being
>> perceived as overwhelmingly in that latter camp.
>> 
>> /John
>> 
> 




From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Wed Dec 21 06:37:46 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:37:46 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAMzo+1Zby+bCNU+jEfGPNfn6G8_8v__wHDHMV5ZgHCMuw9zzwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEEC3B6.8010009@bennett.com>
	<20111219004459563946.2d8b60d4@talsever.com>
	<4EEED472.9030802@bennett.com>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EF1EF3A.9040409@dcrocker.net>


On 12/20/2011 5:37 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
> have committed to engage the technical community to look for
> alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
> or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
> some of you to engage.


Vint,

This is good news.  It would, indeed, be far better to engage in a constructive, 
proactive discussion than to have little choice but to sign an opposition note. 
  As with others, I'm glad to contribute to those discussions.

A basic, underlying challenge is a pervasive tendency to believe that, for the 
Internet, there are technical solutions to social problems.  This has been a 
major, continuing impediment to policy discussions involving spam, for example.

Outside of the Internet, smart people have not been able to eliminate crime.  We 
all need to be careful about assuming that smart people can eliminate any forms 
of it on the Internet.  On the other hand, some reductions certain must be 
possible, as has been true outside of the Internet.

So there should certainly should be efforts, but they need clarity, modesty and 
balance in setting expectations and defining mechanisms.

For example, the view at the policy level often is that it is acceptable to make 
changes that result is major constraints on /legitimate/ use, nevermind that 
there is often little empirical basis for knowing that the change will be 
effective in countering the problem behaviors.

Typically, folks proposing changes have a narrow range of personal experience, 
whereas the policy mandates will affect a broader range.  (For reference, this 
limitation in perspective is often a problem in /technical/ groups, nevermind 
policy groups.)

So one of the challenges in the discussions is to educate about the broader 
range and its importance.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Dec 21 07:11:27 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:11:27 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EF1E7FF.9060802@redbarn.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EF1E7FF.9060802@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <E24E4846-F10C-4782-BA79-574E6AEFFA84@corp.arin.net>

On Dec 21, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:

Robert Heinlein, writing as Dr. Pinero, wrote:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

Paul -

  The parties are not seeking to "guaranteeing their profit" by stopping the
  clock of history.  They are seeking effective enforcement of existing laws
  which make it illegal for US citizens to download copyrighted material from
  non-authorized sources.

  Vint said it correctly: "Copying and distribution of digital content is so easy
  (and not just on the net) that one has to figure out different ways to render
  the copying and distribution unfruitful."

  That implies that the laws be changed so that this behavior becomes legal,
  to better reflect reality of the new digital age,  Until then the "clocks of time"
  are actually stressing against enforcement of existing laws, and until we get
  those laws changed, the copyright industry is quite legitimate in asking for the
  government to adopt meaningful enforcement mechanisms.

  Do you think that there is support in Congress (the legislative body duly
  elected by the people) to decriminalize copying and distribution of digital
  content?  Unless that's the case, their requests are keeping with public
  interest that's historically been expressed in copyright law.

  As you are aware, I'm dead set against SOPA.  I just want to be very clear
  that there is an intellectually honest argument for why better mechanisms
  for copyright enforcement over the Internet are needed.

/John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20111221/3c2c18bc/attachment.htm>

From paul at redbarn.org  Wed Dec 21 07:35:53 2011
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:35:53 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <E24E4846-F10C-4782-BA79-574E6AEFFA84@corp.arin.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EF1E7FF.9060802@redbarn.org>
	<E24E4846-F10C-4782-BA79-574E6AEFFA84@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <4EF1FCD9.3090806@redbarn.org>

On 12/21/2011 3:11 PM, John Curran wrote:
>  
>   The parties are not seeking to "guaranteeing their profit" by
> stopping the 
>   clock of history.  They are seeking effective enforcement of
> existing laws 
>   which make it illegal for US citizens to download copyrighted
> material from
>   non-authorized sources.

john, while i don't believe that the internet is or should be a law-free
zone, i worry that you are mischaracterizing the proponents of SOPA.
they are not pushing for new enforcement powers for existing law, but
rather new law. that new law anticipates that internet-connected devices
can be closed by default, like a tivo or an iPhone, and where the device
will not be generally configurable or programmable unless it is first
"jail broken". there is no other way to enforce a mandated DNS filtering
law. and in that sense, SOPA is a turn-back-the-clock statute. to be
sure, there would be less theft and less fraud if the Internet were more
like Minitel. but i think there would also be less economic growth for
the world if all logic had to be licensed before it could create any
internet traffic flows.

we could have fun and perhaps learn a lot by estimating the relative
potential losses and gains from a theoretical "less open" Internet where
circumvention of content protection law was somehow nontrivial. but the
issue is moot; we have the Internet we have, and there is no possible
way to enforce a turn-back-the-clock law.

as you know i've long worked for a more accountable Internet, and for a
world where existing laws against fraud and theft can be enforced even
when the Internet is between a given criminal and that day's victims.
this leads me to support the OPEN Act...

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5034df19-5b8e-4d45-9f1f-f2c0dd8f17d4

...which urges a traditional follow-the-money approach to this problem,
using existing FTC methods.

>   Do you think that there is support in Congress (the legislative body
> duly 
>   elected by the people) to decriminalize copying and distribution of
> digital
>   content?  Unless that's the case, their requests are keeping with public
>   interest that's historically been expressed in copyright law.
>
>   As you are aware, I'm dead set against SOPA.  I just want to be very
> clear
>   that there is an intellectually honest argument for why better
> mechanisms
>   for copyright enforcement over the Internet are needed.

there is no such support in congress. and i am not suggesting that
content and brand owners simply give up and let the Internet ruin them.
the OPEN Act (see above) is not a turn-back-the-clock proposal and i
think it meets the standard you're setting ("better mechanisms for
copyright enforcement over the Internet"). it does so by adding new
disincentives for the criminals themselves, without being in any way
preventive or proscriptive against end users nor burdensome on
ISP's-in-the-middle.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20111221/a3fbc92d/attachment.htm>

From paul at redbarn.org  Wed Dec 21 07:44:32 2011
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:44:32 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>

On 12/21/2011 2:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
> For example, if you had a bill which specified SOPA-like measures entirely 
> for the purposes of defeating child pornography, I might very well support
> such a bill.  Yes, the measures would have technical issues, would be readily
> subverted, the powers might be abused, etc...  but in the end, the need for
> a very high deterrent to such crimes warrants all of the downsides (as a 
> quick review of the adopted legislation in this area will demonstrate)

I think you'd be wrong to support such a bill, whose positive impact
could never be more than to signify the government's displeasure toward
a certain kind of content -- it would not protect children from this
kind of abuse -- whereas its negative impacts would be far reaching. See:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/199435-mandates-cant-alter-facts

Paul


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Dec 21 08:37:23 2011
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:37:23 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <D0D591FC-60AE-401D-ABF6-7F3E724E908D@network-heretics.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<CAHxHggdGVxS0s_aACn+JaRNc3v=Qk8_iX5Qn=AVr7+_TXbZGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EF1 E7FF.9060802@redbarn.org>
	<E24E4846-F10C-4782-BA79-574E6AEFFA84@corp.arin.net>,
	<D0D591FC-60AE-401D-ABF6-7F3E724E908D@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <2D0A63E0-0345-4161-8BC1-8CBF38E61FDB@arin.net>

Keith -

Actually, I agree with nearly every point you make...  The problem is that "we first need copyright reform that actually fairly reflects public interest (unlike the drivel you tend to pass)" won't make a useful argument to Congress in the least for stopping SOPA.

/John

On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:20 AM, "Keith Moore" <moore at network-heretics.com<mailto:moore at network-heretics.com>> wrote:


On Dec 21, 2011, at 10:11 AM, John Curran wrote:

On Dec 21, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:

Robert Heinlein, writing as Dr. Pinero, wrote:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

Paul -

  The parties are not seeking to "guaranteeing their profit" by stopping the
  clock of history.  They are seeking effective enforcement of existing laws
  which make it illegal for US citizens to download copyrighted material from
  non-authorized sources.

Whether they realize it or not, they're seeking far more than effective enforcement of those laws.   (And of course they are seeking to guarantee their profit.)

  Vint said it correctly: "Copying and distribution of digital content is so easy
  (and not just on the net) that one has to figure out different ways to render
  the copying and distribution unfruitful."

  That implies that the laws be changed so that this behavior becomes legal,
  to better reflect reality of the new digital age,  Until then the "clocks of time"
  are actually stressing against enforcement of existing laws, and until we get
  those laws changed, the copyright industry is quite legitimate in asking for the
  government to adopt meaningful enforcement mechanisms.

I think it's interesting that you labeled them "the copyright industry" rather than say "the content creation industry".   Part of the problem is that the industry that has sprung up to manage copyrights now has interests of its own, separate from those of content creators.

  Do you think that there is support in Congress (the legislative body duly
  elected by the people) to decriminalize copying and distribution of digital
  content?  Unless that's the case, their requests are keeping with public
  interest that's historically been expressed in copyright law.

Members of Congress are effectively chosen by a small number of people who control access to significant campaign funds and/or political party resources.  By the time "the people" get a choice in the matter, their choice is generally meaningless.   There are some exceptions, but they are rare.

So laws passed by Congress do not, in general, reflect the public interest.  Though there are rare cases in which the issues become so clear to the general public that the public is able to pressure Congress to do so.  (This might turn out to be one of those cases.)

  As you are aware, I'm dead set against SOPA.  I just want to be very clear
  that there is an intellectually honest argument for why better mechanisms
  for copyright enforcement over the Internet are needed.

There's an intellectually honest argument for why it's necessary to protect the investment that content creators make in their works.   That doesn't inherently imply a need for better mechanism to enforce existing copyright laws.

Most of the mechanisms associated with "copyright" have the inherent assumption that copying mechanisms (e.g. printing presses) are expensive, and so copiers have an interest in protecting their investment in such mechanisms.   As copying has gradually become less expensive (photocopiers, home taping, computer media, networking) the mechanism of a "copy right" has become less effective.

Fortunately, alternative mechanisms have been developed and continue to be improved.   Most of the early mechanisms suffered from a failure to recognize the public's legitimate interests - e.g. to preserve a consumer's investment in purchasing a copy of a work, to allow copying for criticism and scholarly purposes, to have anonymous and unmonitored access to works, to preserve works for historical study, to be able to build on previous works when creating new works, etc.   The intent behind copyright (as opposed to recent reality) was to strike a balance between the public interest in having incentives for content creators to produce new works, and the public interest in having access to existing works.   As long as DRM mechanisms only protect the interests of the content-owners, the public will continue to have a strong incentive to circumvent them.   It does appear to be possible, if sometimes challenging, to design mechanisms that strike a good balance between those two competing interests.  But those mechanisms won't be designed by Congress.   If anything, Congress has been impeding development of those mechanisms.

Keith

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20111221/28ca4e94/attachment.htm>

From craig at aland.bbn.com  Wed Dec 21 09:24:49 2011
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:24:49 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
Message-ID: <20111221172449.8E51B28E137@aland.bbn.com>

> I think it's interesting that you labeled them "the copyright industry" rat=
> her than say "the content creation industry".   Part of the problem is that=
>  the industry that has sprung up to manage copyrights now has interests of =
> its own, separate from those of content creators.

I think there are at least 5 parties in the content chain, with disinct
interests:

    1. Content creators (e.g. authors, musicians, composers, script writers,
	actors, directors)
    2. Content distributors (publishers, recording companies, movie studios)
    3. Points of sale (booksellers, movie theaters, concert venues)
    4. Consumers
    5. Copyright enforcement industry

There's also vertical silos -- music behaves differently from books which
behaves differently from movies.

And if you look a bit at the history so far (and this is a history mailing
list), you'll observe that the approach is different by silo and that the
attempts at copyright enforcement create different challenges.

Music has, as best I can tell, given up.  Part of the reason, I believe, is
that content distributors were typically viewed as the enemy by both creators
(musicians) and consumers.  The result is a world in which creators of
music content get modest money through sales in iTunes and similar markets
(and the restrictions on sharing purchased items keep getting closer to
"redistribute however you, the consumer, wish") and make their real money
by doing live performances.

The book community is still evolving.  E-books have recently upended the
marketplace because they make self publishing easy and so put content
distributors on their heels.  Also, authors come in multiple forms -- some
authors publish for credibility but make their money on the speaking
circuit (e.g. business consultants, self help folks) and thus are not
seriously harmed by redistribution of their material.  Other authors,
such as romance novelists, make their money through book sales and have
an interest in protecting their product.  As a result, you seem some
confusion (which may not be fully apparent as the major authors' associations
are dominated by folks who make their money off selling product).

The movie market remains one where there's a high investment in creating
the product and a reliance on sales of product (through theaters and DVD) to
recoup costs.  So they have a deep interest in preventing redistribution.
(I don't claim to understand the TV video market at all, so I won't try to
discuss).

Note that in all these cases, redistribution helps consumers.  In some cases,
it helps content creators.  It always threatens at least some distributors
and points of sale.

Thanks!

Craig


From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Dec 21 14:18:56 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:18:56 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaff.org>

On Dec 21, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 2:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> For example, if you had a bill which specified SOPA-like measures entirely 
>> for the purposes of defeating child pornography, I might very well support
>> such a bill.  Yes, the measures would have technical issues, would be readily
>> subverted, the powers might be abused, etc...  but in the end, the need for
>> a very high deterrent to such crimes warrants all of the downsides (as a 
>> quick review of the adopted legislation in this area will demonstrate)
> 
> I think you'd be wrong to support such a bill, whose positive impact
> could never be more than to signify the government's displeasure toward
> a certain kind of content -- it would not protect children from this
> kind of abuse -- whereas its negative impacts would be far reaching. See:
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/199435-mandates-cant-alter-facts

Paul - 
 
  Child pornography is not "a certain kind of content"; it is evidence 
  of heinous crime.  Its treatment is covered by statutes that not only
  make the production and sale a federal crime, but also the knowing 
  advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, or possession 
  of the material. These laws were very effective at preventing its 
  propagation over the Internet (you likely remember the widespread 
  removal of the respective alt newsgroups from the commercials feeds 
  that occurred around that time...) I received numerous orders when
  running two nationwide ISPs to take action with respect to child
  porn, and while the due process was rather expeditious and there
  were occasions of mistakes and compensated parties, I never had
  any regret in acting on the orders nor do I expect did any of the
  folks in law enforcement. (Btw, the only reason that we've now lost 
  ground is the emergence of peer-to-peer networks anchored in a 
  handful of countries with deep criminal/government entanglements)

  Despite the assertions of folks that Internet should "route around
  censorship", there are actual children being harmed when we don't
  use every measure at our disposal to pursue the creators of child
  pornography. The crime has already occurred in the case of child 
  pornography and if pursuit of the culprits requires alteration
  or blocking of DNS, in most states one can face being charged as 
  an accessory for failure to act in preventing its distribution.

  We should not meddle in the Internet infrastructure (DNS and IP 
  service) for routine commercial disputes but in my view that's 
  irrelevant when it comes to prosecution for this crime of great 
  harm to innocent victims. Luckily, the existing statutes are 
  already more than sufficient, and can shutdown everything from
  any communications service to a container ship or Fedex hub if 
  that is what it takes to get the job done.
 
  We need to keep in mind that some folks view the business and
  economic impact from copyright violators with similar priority, 
  and that any perceived technical limitations that we assert are
  going to be quickly dismissed as irrelevant.  This will continue 
  unless/until we can move the discussion in another direction (such 
  as requiring more international law enforcement cooperation)
  
/John





From randy at psg.com  Wed Dec 21 14:45:25 2011
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:45:25 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet
	Engineers	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<B8962D52-FF64-479C-9CB8-8FBAFA7790F8@istaff.org>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <m2obv1czne.wl%randy@psg.com>

there is no other list better suited for this discussion?

fwiw, while i agreed with the eff petition, i chose not to sign it
because i try very hard not to play the role of an important person.
there is no shortage of ways to speak and act against sopa, though i
believe all are essentially hopeless.  a cornered dinosaur which owns
our government is gonna do a lot of damage in its death throes.

randy


From paul at redbarn.org  Wed Dec 21 17:03:52 2011
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:03:52 +0000
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaf f.org>
Message-ID: <4EF281F8.9020106@redbarn.org>

since this thread isn't about internet history i think i'll stop posting
beyond this note.

On 12/21/2011 10:18 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you'd be wrong to support such a bill, whose positive impact
>> could never be more than to signify the government's displeasure toward
>> a certain kind of content -- it would not protect children from this
>> kind of abuse -- whereas its negative impacts would be far reaching. See:
>>
>> http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/199435-mandates-cant-alter-facts
> Paul - 
>  
>   ... I received numerous orders when
>   running two nationwide ISPs to take action with respect to child
>   porn, and while the due process was rather expeditious and there
>   were occasions of mistakes and compensated parties, I never had
>   any regret in acting on the orders nor do I expect did any of the
>   folks in law enforcement.

nor did i in the years i ran AS6461. but that's not the point.

>  ... and if pursuit of the culprits requires alteration
>   or blocking of DNS, in most states one can face being charged as 
>   an accessory for failure to act in preventing its distribution.

dns blocking isn't about pursuit of culprits, so, that's not the point
either.

>   We should not meddle in the Internet infrastructure (DNS and IP 
>   service) for routine commercial disputes but in my view that's 
>   irrelevant when it comes to prosecution for this crime of great 
>   harm to innocent victims. Luckily, the existing statutes are 
>   already more than sufficient, and can shutdown everything from
>   any communications service to a container ship or Fedex hub if 
>   that is what it takes to get the job done.

no objections from me to any of that.

>   We need to keep in mind that some folks view the business and
>   economic impact from copyright violators with similar priority, 
>   and that any perceived technical limitations that we assert are
>   going to be quickly dismissed as irrelevant.  This will continue 
>   unless/until we can move the discussion in another direction (such 
>   as requiring more international law enforcement cooperation)

my point in revisiting this thread twice now is just to say, mandated
dns blocking is not an effective method of  halting the distribution of
objectionable materials (whether child abuse materials, or stolen
copyrighted material, or sale of brand infringing material). it will not
be effective, on its best day. but a law requiring it be done, and the
infrastructure necessary to implement such a law, would completely
change the assumptions that a DNSSEC initiator (such as an
edge-validating browser using DANE to authenticate a self-signed X.509
cert) must be able to make when faced with a missing or invalid
signature. as you (john) know, the error path is paramount in all
security work.

no good, and much harm, is what would come from mandated DNS filtering
at the ISP level. that fact remains no matter whether the domain being
blocked is doing web service for child abuse materials, or anything
else. there are no corner cases here. the facts remain no matter what
the content is and no matter what the law is.

i apologize to those i've annoyed by continuing this non-history thread.
i will respond only 1x1 from now forward, unless it's an on-topic thread.

paul


From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Dec 21 19:24:46 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:24:46 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EF281F8.9020106@redbarn.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaf> <f.org@mac.com>
	<4EF281F8.9020106@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <3EEA1E60-F103-4DF4-BB26-46C3EA031D4B@istaff.org>

On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> no good, and much harm, is what would come from mandated DNS filtering
> at the ISP level.

Paul - 

Agreed that it would be both ineffective and do great harm. I never said
otherwise.

My point, however, is simply that the technical implications of SOPA
are meaningless to the current debate in Congress.  There are parties
that feel that their cause (reducing illegally copyrighted material) 
is important enough to warrant these remedies & potential consequences,
and unless folks start proposing some alternatives via constructive 
engagement that at least tries to consider their position, we're going 
to find it very difficult to dilute the support behind the present bill
by rational argument about technology limitations.(*)

The nature of most elected officials is assumption that the technology
will simply have to change to comply with law, as opposed to law having
having to be bound by the limitations in today's technology.  That may
not make sense to us, but it makes perfect sense if you write laws for
a living.

/John

(*) p.s.  The one wild card in this all is the level of public calls 
      on the SOPA matter received by these congressman.  If the level 
      gets high enough that they feel their job would be endangered
      by voting for SOPA, then indeed we could win.  I've called my
      congressfolks, and had every family member to same.  Please do
      direct everyone you know to <http://americancensorship.org/> or
      similar sites asap.

      



From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Thu Dec 22 06:09:05 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:09:05 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@ista! ff.org>
Message-ID: <4EF33A01.8040706@dcrocker.net>



On 12/21/2011 2:18 PM, John Curran wrote:
>    Despite the assertions of folks that Internet should "route around
>    censorship", there are actual children being harmed when we don't
>    use every measure at our disposal to pursue the creators of child
>    pornography.


Now that you've have landed solidly into the position of using this particular 
emotional appeal to justify "use [of] every measure at our disposal", please 
forgive me for feeling the need to remind you that the Constitution and its 
amendments actually require balancing these possibilities against minor matters 
such as violation of civil rights.

We often have measures at our disposal which would produce such violations and, 
therefore, are not permitted to use them.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From jcurran at istaff.org  Thu Dec 22 06:15:33 2011
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:15:33 -0500
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <4EF33A01.8040706@dcrocker.net>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<9885CC66-5FCC-495C-9663-A0DEDD0A98C4@network-heretics.com>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@ista!> <ff.org@mac.com>
	<4EF33A01.8040706@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <8990D7E6-5304-4307-A672-11EB54560E80@istaff.org>

On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 12/21/2011 2:18 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>   Despite the assertions of folks that Internet should "route around
>>   censorship", there are actual children being harmed when we don't
>>   use every measure at our disposal to pursue the creators of child
>>   pornography.
> 
> Now that you've have landed solidly into the position of using this particular emotional appeal to justify "use [of] every measure at our disposal", please forgive me for feeling the need to remind you that the Constitution and its amendments actually require balancing these possibilities against minor matters such as violation of civil rights.
> 
> We often have measures at our disposal which would produce such violations and, therefore, are not permitted to use them.

That's why there are judges, Dave.
/John





From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Thu Dec 22 07:21:08 2011
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:21:08 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers
 against censorship
In-Reply-To: <8990D7E6-5304-4307-A672-11EB54560E80@istaff.org>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@ista!> <ff.org@mac.com>
	<4EF33A01.8040706@dcrocker.net>
	<8990D7E6-5304-4307-A672-11EB54560E80@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <4EF34AE4.90701@dcrocker.net>



On 12/22/2011 6:15 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> We often have measures at our disposal which would produce such violations
>> and, therefore, are not permitted to use them.
>
> That's why there are judges, Dave.


Well, indeed, one of the purposes of appeals courts is for remedying the 
creation of bad laws.

However their existence is not usually offered as justification for creating 
laws that violate civil rights.

The requirement for balancing capabilities against civil rights issues is an 
affirmative responsibility of the process for /creating/ laws.

Your language ignores that requirement.

d/

ps.  Bsides being out of scope for this list, this exchange hasn't been an 
engaged process of collaborative exchange to explore concerns. So I'll bow out.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


From richard at bennett.com  Thu Dec 22 09:52:26 2011
From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:52:26 -0800
Subject: [ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet
 Engineers	against censorship
In-Reply-To: <m2obv1czne.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <20111214151655.6EF4818C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<6FE3593C-67C7-496A-A68E-102B948B8B5F@istaff.org>
	<4EEF4A14.4070401@dcrocker.net>
	<E784B4E0-55BC-40C7-8355-C29D3B651ECA@istaff.org>
	<4EEFC14D.9010309@dcrocker.net>
	<6F43EE54-B280-46B1-896B-DA455F82C436@istaff.org>
	<4EF003A3.2040202@dcrocker.net>
	<D6449510-BA3E-4FE9-9910-8E543DBA298C@istaff.org>
	<CEEB25D5-CDEB-4816-B56F-F245E3849274@network-heretics.com>
	<22695D72-7106-464F-9EBA-84B1062CAA33@istaff.org>
	<4EF099B4.4080804@dcrocker.net>
	<6C060000-6E28-4E3A-8D47-49CC37DC2488@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggc5KmUaEVJSzcfJvsy0fdq8bT+VDS8TsFZvj8m9APuBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzo+1b3KUg5oB1e09UmGv2wfiriDWEhR5-HimmkZC=aikxZgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D5D0533-B78E-4064-AFD0-D70FD8739486@istaff.org>
	<CAHxHggfxWa-2ri4pX9K7Vom8+RQtF=RiXD=dtV=DMg-oNahvpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B1C365CD-F337-4506-8558-C11E07DB7C9D@istaff.org>
	<4EF1FEE0.3090804@redbarn.org>
	<B3827430-0D4D-47B5-96E6-BB675D6830D8@istaff.org>
	<m2obv1czne.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4EF36E5A.3010002@bennett.com>

I'd be very happy for anyone with an opinion on this subject to weigh in 
on a discussion thread I've created for the purpose in the High Tech 
Forum blog, at 
http://www.hightechforum.org/discussion-thread-does-dns-filtering-break-the-internet/

I can promise an uncensored (except for spam) discussion in a public 
space. I'd also be happy to post articles on the subject written by 
technical people of the blog comment form is unsatisfactory.

On 12/21/2011 2:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> there is no other list better suited for this discussion?
>
> fwiw, while i agreed with the eff petition, i chose not to sign it
> because i try very hard not to play the role of an important person.
> there is no shortage of ways to speak and act against sopa, though i
> believe all are essentially hopeless.  a cornered dinosaur which owns
> our government is gonna do a lot of damage in its death throes.
>
> randy

-- 
Richard Bennett