There's no reason to argue if you're speaking out of ignorance (which, by the way, I'm not accusing you of), so I won't bother typing out a big response quite yet. If you're interested, the EFF has a pretty good <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-supporting-free-speech">writeup</a> about the problems with these bills.
I will address your "alarmist hyperbole" comment, though. SOPA/PIPA give the government power to block websites at the DNS level. If RAFO were to be blocked, it would be impossible to access via "readandfindout.com." You could access it via the IP address, but how many people here know how to do that? As to whether the government would take down RAFO, probably not. However, if you've followed the domain name seizures that have already been occurring, you'd know that the government has a positively abysmal accuracy rate. For example, check <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/">this link</a>. Basically, the government wrongly seized a DNS provider's page, which brought down some 84,000 of that site's customers. If RAFO's registrar were seized, the same thing would happen to us. Oh, and interestingly, our registrar is one of the sites participating in the blackout, for what that's worth.
One more thing. The centralized DNS censorship proposed by these bills is incompatible with DNSSec -- a next generation DNS security protocol that we badly need. You literally cannot have both DNSSec, and SOPA/PIPA, at the same time.
In short, passing these bills WOULD directly alter the infrastructure of the internet, and would do so in a way that would make it easy to take RAFO down. Of course, there are a whole host of other reasons to dislike the bill, but I'm trying not to get into it any more than is necessary to address your "alarmist hyperbole" comment.
I will address your "alarmist hyperbole" comment, though. SOPA/PIPA give the government power to block websites at the DNS level. If RAFO were to be blocked, it would be impossible to access via "readandfindout.com." You could access it via the IP address, but how many people here know how to do that? As to whether the government would take down RAFO, probably not. However, if you've followed the domain name seizures that have already been occurring, you'd know that the government has a positively abysmal accuracy rate. For example, check <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/">this link</a>. Basically, the government wrongly seized a DNS provider's page, which brought down some 84,000 of that site's customers. If RAFO's registrar were seized, the same thing would happen to us. Oh, and interestingly, our registrar is one of the sites participating in the blackout, for what that's worth.
One more thing. The centralized DNS censorship proposed by these bills is incompatible with DNSSec -- a next generation DNS security protocol that we badly need. You literally cannot have both DNSSec, and SOPA/PIPA, at the same time.
In short, passing these bills WOULD directly alter the infrastructure of the internet, and would do so in a way that would make it easy to take RAFO down. Of course, there are a whole host of other reasons to dislike the bill, but I'm trying not to get into it any more than is necessary to address your "alarmist hyperbole" comment.
And would before taking a firm position on these particular bills as written.
Thing is, the administration has effectively suspended action on both bills pending already solicited public feedback and suggested improvements. Reacting to that with blackouts and protests that "we MUST stop this fascist law threatening the very existence of all ehumanity111" seems like the typical over the top hysteria that breaks out every time the US government considers clamping down on peoples "freedom" to do any irresponsible or larcenous thing they like on the internet that government created. It might be a great way for people to vent their spleens, but will not change anything, because it does not provide any of the superior alternatives the administration has requested.
Meanwhile, the government WILL enact SOME kind of legislation to restrict activity it deems undesirable; there are ample and powerful strategic reasons to do so wholly apart from any commercial ones. That "next generation security protocol that we badly need"? I am QUITE sure Congress, the President and the DoD agree with you on that need; instead of inciting mass epanic over their attempts to implement SOMETHING in that direction, why not include that in a response to their reasonable request that people tell them "not what is wrong, but what would be RIGHT"? Because as long as the definition of "right" is "nothing at all" they will dismiss that ludicrously untenable "suggestion."
The US government will not preserve, not just commercial vulnerabilities to piracy, but national vulnerabilities to military espionage, surveillance and sabotage, simply because the netizens of the world feel threatened by attempts to eliminate those vulnerabilities. Nor should it. There WILL be a new regulatory law; the only question is whether the people most affected by it choose to be involved with its design and thereby produce a largely positive law that accomplishes necessary reform and regulation without unduly censoring anyone or restricting their access to data that should be freely available. If, however, this is just another case of people asserting their "right" to download the location of US missile silos, and their computer access codes, then the government will ignore them, as it should.
Just out of idle curiosity, do we have an estimate of how many of the sites and servers that might be shut down under this law are actually owned and operated by the US government? I know the internets infrastructure has experienced a lot of private growth in the past decade or two, but have we reached the point where the internet could just keep on truckin' if the US government took all its systems offline tomorrow? If the answer is "no" is it all that unreasonable for them to perform at least a LITTLE regulation of that infrastructure, certainly their share of it? Just enough that the hundreds of daily cyberattacks from China do not shut down our radar defenses or download schematics of an Abrams MBT?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout
17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM
- 2103 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right?
17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM
- 938 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"?
17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM
- 1041 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills?
17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM
- 1133 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much
17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM
- 987 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter.
18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM
- 1092 Views
I love you. *NM*
18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM
- 632 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM*
18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM
- 619 Views
Can i second the adulation?
18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM
- 824 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM*
18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM
- 617 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill.
18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM
- 990 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this.
18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM
- 943 Views
Also, in the case of the OPEN Act, it has not "been proposed for months."
18/01/2012 07:28:15 PM
- 1408 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please.
18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM
- 1006 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary.
18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM
- 1003 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now.
18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM
- 1016 Views
OK.
18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM
- 1038 Views
should be interesting
17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM
- 862 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors.
17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM
- 930 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding.
17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM
- 948 Views
So tell them that.
17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM
- 1092 Views
Joel, I think I'm done with this unless you want to do some research.
18/01/2012 02:53:19 AM
- 894 Views
Research would tell me what is wrong with these bills and how a good bill should look.
18/01/2012 11:22:46 AM
- 1011 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good.
17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM
- 866 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust.
17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM
- 1005 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright?
18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM
- 846 Views
There seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM
- 971 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM
- 842 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 10:27:32 PM
- 1106 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 11:30:39 PM
- 962 Views
Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable.
19/01/2012 04:08:58 PM
- 975 Views
Re: Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable.
19/01/2012 10:39:40 PM
- 959 Views
If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
20/01/2012 09:12:29 PM
- 1243 Views
Re: If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
21/01/2012 03:19:49 AM
- 868 Views
Er, what Ghav said.
18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM
- 871 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments.
18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM
- 912 Views
Okay, another analogy:
18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM
- 898 Views
The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 03:31:20 PM
- 904 Views
what they SHOULD do is stop taking money from proponents of sopa/pipa
18/01/2012 03:51:09 PM
- 1017 Views
Yes, they should, but, once again, that approach will not prevent a new law.
18/01/2012 04:05:02 PM
- 992 Views
Re: The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 04:27:30 PM
- 943 Views
If the US government wants to summarily block sites within the US, it already can and will.
18/01/2012 06:15:53 PM
- 892 Views
You know all this anti-SOPA bullshit is making me hope the bill passes.
18/01/2012 04:00:17 AM
- 959 Views
I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
18/01/2012 11:41:23 AM
- 983 Views
Re: I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
19/01/2012 01:57:46 AM
- 807 Views
Yeah, the extreme bias on both sides is why the bills will likely pass more or less as written.
19/01/2012 03:31:52 PM
- 990 Views
joel, you need to consider three things
18/01/2012 06:06:16 AM
- 952 Views
You need to consider that they WILL pass some legislation, and what you want it to contain.
18/01/2012 12:15:38 PM
- 1001 Views
again, it's not about piracy, it's about protecting the mpaa/riaa business model at our expense
18/01/2012 03:34:32 PM
- 1074 Views
Yeah, see, that is the problem: "it's not about piracy."
18/01/2012 03:57:55 PM
- 913 Views
if piracy is such a problem then the mpaa/riaa need to PROVE their losses
19/01/2012 02:43:31 AM
- 933 Views
How do you expect anyone to prove what people WOULD HAVE bought if they could not just take it?
19/01/2012 03:57:24 PM
- 1215 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP
18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM
- 877 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin."
18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM
- 1137 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me
18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM
- 757 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation.
18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM
- 981 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation
18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM
- 903 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else.
18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM
- 880 Views
Strike three.
18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM
- 939 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing.
18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM
- 755 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me
18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM
- 1017 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no.
18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM
- 862 Views
About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM
- 1018 Views
So true
18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM
- 955 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM
- 1093 Views
Hm, you should read my post one above about combatting online piracy.
18/01/2012 06:20:16 PM
- 1046 Views
I would not recommend photocopying a book and handing it out on street corners.
18/01/2012 06:45:52 PM
- 965 Views
Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 07:31:18 PM
- 885 Views
Re: Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 08:55:59 PM
- 976 Views
I always liked the codewheels SSI provided with copies of their Gold Box AD&D games.
18/01/2012 10:07:40 PM
- 1098 Views
These are really different arguments
19/01/2012 12:05:10 AM
- 868 Views
TV is slightly different, because regional availability becomes a factor.
19/01/2012 04:18:58 PM
- 861 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM*
18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM
- 670 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM*
18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM
- 654 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM*
19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM
- 516 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM*
19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM
- 644 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM
- 458 Views
I really don't see the fun in that. Wikipedia is just a tool, not a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 04:59:14 AM
- 561 Views
I don't know about those (except French), but none of the ones I ever used are remotely as good. *NM*
18/01/2012 08:13:47 PM
- 645 Views
Russian wikipedia is very good if you're not checking some obscure Western cultural phenomena.
19/01/2012 01:57:43 AM
- 1041 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia...
19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM
- 1003 Views
Re: Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... *NM*
19/01/2012 01:34:46 AM
- 691 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students!
19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM
- 1026 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA.
19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM
- 988 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place?
20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM
- 1089 Views