Last week's Supreme Court decision in Cox Communications reshaped the piracy liability landscape, creating new urgency for site-blocking.

Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Cox Communications reshaped the piracy liability landscape, creating new urgency for site-blocking.

    • N0x0n@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      5 hours ago

      Huh? That’s just a myth… They are just like every other folks, blinded sheeps who sometime go into the streets doing nothing 🤫

      Had any of the last decades street walks any important impact? Like Farmers? Nothing… Gillet jaune? Nothing… Police? Nothing… Get this bastard out of Presidency? Naaaah…

      So yeah, Historically, French people are known for their revolutionary bloodlust, but that’s long gone.

  • smeg@infosec.pubEnglish
    144·
    3 days ago

    Literally every single large AI provider admits to committing large scale piracy. No congressional response.

    Some members of the public are watching HBO shows because they’re poor? FULL FORCE OF THE LAW

  • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    46·
    3 days ago

    Good news for fascists since it means there will be an easy way to force ISPs to block all “unlawful” content like Wikipedia or any other site that gives educational information to refute their current agendas or reflects opposing opinions that they consider “alternative facts”.

    • Teknikal@anarchist.nexusEnglish
      7·
      3 days ago

      Most isps just mess with the DNS, dnscrypt is a solution to make sure they can’t. Best solution is not using dns in the first place though.

      • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        9·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, I have my own DNS server that caches from multiple backing servers as needed. I’m not worried about DNS blocking, it’s never been effective. The issue is ISP level blocking usually isnt just DNS blocking, it’s also involves IP level blocking, many of which dont work on IPv6 which is one reason (besides just resistance to replacing old hardware) it hasn’t been adopted widely by consumer ISPs. If you have only a single, unchangeable (by anyone other than them) IP address, they have much more control and your traffic is much easier to track and manipulate.

        And there is even lower level blocking at lower layers of the network stack. ISPs can intercept and mangle packet’s destinations at any layer because your traffic must go through them and so your networking equipment must trust their equipment to properly route traffic. They don’t do it now mostly because it means adding a lot more processing power to analyze every packet. I do it all the time at home to block ads and other malicious traffic. But if they’re required to upgrade to allow for that level of traffic analysis, by law, then that opens the floodgates for all kinds of manipulation either politically or capitalistically nefarious in nature.

      • dan@upvote.auEnglish
        9·
        2 days ago

        Best solution is not using dns in the first place though.

        Use DNS over HTTPS (or TLS or QUIC). I think some browsers use it by default now. If there’s country-specific blocks, use your own recursive DNS server, or one in another country.

        • Teknikal@anarchist.nexusEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          Can still be messed with by the Isp not saying dns encrypt is a solution but it will bypass this, not much it can do against direct IP blocking mind you for that you need vpn or a service like tor/i2p.

          Does stop the this has been blocked by court order type messages though and does it well.

          • dan@upvote.auEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            Can still be messed with by the Isp

            Not as easily though. It’s like regular HTTPS - if anyone, including the ISP, tries a MitM (man in the middle) attack, you’ll get a security error because the certificate won’t be trusted. The only real way for a MitM attack to be successful is installing a custom root certificate on the client system.

            Like you mentioned, IP blocking is harder to bypass, but that’s unrelated to DNS blocking. IP blocking is harder to do if the site uses a CDN like CloudFront, BunnyCDN, Cloudflare, etc though, since a large number of sites use the same IPs.

  • alakey@piefed.socialEnglish
    50·
    3 days ago

    Ahhhh, there comes the american own great firewall, fantastic…

    Wonder if we will suddenly see this same bullshit pop up in all the pro age verification countries now or a tad later to make it less obvious.

  • Teknikal@anarchist.nexusEnglish
    23·
    3 days ago

    Sooner everything moves to something like i2p the better, there’s no reason to be using the clearnet imo.

    It’s just a safer way of doing things and eventually things will be driven that direction anyway.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      On the contrary, we should keep using clearnet to keep it easy for newcomers.

      Authoritarian countries like the US can just fuck off and the rest of us will be fine. I’ve been doing clearnet piracy with no VPN for over 2 decades now.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    12·
    3 days ago

    Haven’t other countries tried DNS level site blocking, and it’s very easy to get around? Does it even make any difference? The strategy of ISP copyright letters has already trained Americans to use VPNs for this, it seems like the only difference will be that I will have to turn my VPN on before searching for torrents instead of just before actually opening my torrent client

    • alakey@piefed.socialEnglish
      21·
      3 days ago

      DNS blocking is a paper wall indeed. However, this is just a step one. VPNs are already a target, so this will help them with justifying step 2 - introducing DPI to monitor all traffic and proactively block new VPNs and other obfuscation methods. Step 3 is more or less final, it’s when they realize this is also not quite as efficient as they’d like and they’ll get tired of the constant cat and mouse game, so the solution would have to be whitelisting approved websites and blocking everything else. It’s amazing for billionaires and their corpos as that makes it nearly impossible for new projects to enter the market, and it’s great for governments that desperately want to be authoritarian, but pesky constitutions, privacy laws and some such are getting in the way.

  • CobraChicken3000@lemmy.caEnglish
    8·
    3 days ago

    So how would this work theoretically? People in the states would just be prohibited from accessing certain sites and Google would remove them from results of searchs?