NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Why PROTECT IP Web Censorship Will Fail - But Lead to Much Worse
Why PROTECT IP Web Censorship Will Fail - But Lead to Much Worse
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000858.html
The U.S. Congress is continuing its headlong rush toward Internet
control, along at least two fronts (see: "'Let Them Eat Bits': How We
Can Save Freedom On the Internet": http://j.mp/kbMNdK [Lauren's Blog] ).
Legislation that would require data retention by ISPs regarding their
users (except for wireless users, an exemption in the current bill
already causing anger at the Justice Department) is now moving through
Congress ( http://j.mp/mFflZE [House/PDF] ). As usual, the
sponsors of this legislation are playing the "name game" by titling
the legislation to imply its main purpose is to protect children from
exploitation, while the legislation itself would permit the collected
data to be used for a much broader range of purposes -- including
presumably the uncovering of whistleblowers and other critical
anonymous speech that any party wishes to target.
And again demonstrating the degree to which entrenched entertainment
industry interests such as the MPAA and RIAA have gained a
stranglehold over our representatives, the Senate Judiciary Committee
this morning, on a bipartisan, unanimous basis, approved the free
speech decimating PROTECT IP Act, and passed it to the Senate floor
( http://j.mp/lTHu1M [ars technica] ).
To his credit, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who opposes PROTECT IP in its
current form, immediately put a "hold" on the bill, but my assumption
is that it will eventually be approved by the full Congress, much or
entirely as it exists today.
The text of the legislation appears to still contain such abominations as
an easily abused "private right to action" and expanded outright
censorship of search engines and other "information location tools"
( http://j.mp/lqWMwj [Public Knowledge/PDF] ).
But a key aspect of PROTECT IP may have been missed by many observers.
As it stands, the legislation, which primarily mandates DNS blocking
and search engine censoring of affected sites, cannot possibly be
effective, especially against sites that do not charge for materials
and so would be unaffected by the bill's financial transaction cutoff
provisions.
Additionally, a group of DNS experts has now released a paper
detailing their serious technical concerns over PROTECT IP's plans to
mangle DNS operations ( http://j.mp/jABdaJ [CircleID] ).
I continue to strongly believe that the time has come to move beyond
the existing Domain Name System for a variety of technical and policy
reasons, either to a fully distributed environment like IDONS
(Internet Distributed Open Name System) or something else that
fulfills the same essential goals ( http://j.mp/h7T2gF [Lauren's Blog] ).
For now though, it is obvious to anyone who understands how the
Internet really functions that PROTECT IP cannot possibly block access
to sites to the degree that those who would trample free speech for
their own economic gain will desire.
Even if specific sites' domain names are not resolved by ISPs, routes
to those sites via other indices and direct IP addresses will continue
to be available, and I would expect various associated workarounds to
greatly expand. For those persons outside U.S. jurisdiction, the
PROTECT IP "DNS mutilation" orders would not even apply in the first
place -- their access would presumably continue completely unimpeded
in most cases.
So what's the real point of all this? It's almost as if PROTECT IP is
designed to fail.
And that may be exactly the plan. If PROTECT IP fails to control
piracy as its proponents promise, even with its outright
unconstitutional trampling of search engine free speech rights and the
rights of many other Internet stakeholders, the pressure will be
enormous to come back with even harsher and more punitive legislation.
I've already had the unnerving experience of recently hearing directly
from Congressional staffers who have told me that language mandating
phased moves toward what I'd view as a hierarchically controlled and
government dictated, China-style Internet, is already being quietly
worked on by certain legislators and their allies in the entertainment
and national security realms.
I'm told that such legislation would of course be carried on a buffet
of ostensible justifications, ranging from economics and security, to
child protection. As close to total government control over Internet
content -- and in particular search engine results -- as can be pushed
through the courts is the ultimate goal.
But it is understood that such an endgame is unlikely to be reached
except in smaller steps. And the first of those steps into this
censorship pit is PROTECT IP.
There are some very smart people, at very high levels, doing very
long-range planning on how to remake the Internet into a finely-tuned
instrument for government control over virtually all aspects of
technological communications.
Anyone (or any company) who speaks out strongly against such a
scenario must be prepared to be falsely branded as pro-piracy,
anti-American, pro-child abuse, and probably even worse by the enemies
of free speech.
But just as few people would be willing to install
government-controlled cameras in every room of their houses -- even
though the law enforcement benefits might be significant -- we must
fight the false assertion that the Internet should be essentially
turned into an adjunct of government in the name of trying to protect
outdated business models and the trampling of our most basic
liberties.
Like Pandora's Box of legend, or the notorious "Puzzle Box" of the
"Hellraiser" films, there are ideas that may seem attractive to
many on the outside, but once engaged will lead inexorably to
extraordinarily deep and nightmarish hells.
Such is PROTECT IP. Congress is preparing to open the PROTECT IP box.
And in the process, they'll be damning free speech, and all of us,
along with themselves.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com