proxy – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "proxy"

ICANN's War On Whois Privacy

from the don't-let-them-win dept

If you follow internet governance issues at all, you know that ICANN is a total freaking mess. It’s a dysfunctional organization that has always been dysfunctional, but remains in charge because of the lack of any reasonable alternatives. ICANN frequently seems to be driven by powerful interests that are just focused on squeezing as much money as possible out of the domain system, and appears to have little appetite for being what it should be: an independent body protecting the core of the internet. As if to put an exclamation point on that, it appears to now be going to war against basic privacy. Here are two separate, but somewhat related, examples.

First up, we have EasyDNS, who last month didn’t beat around the bush in explaining just how ridiculous ICANN’s new Whois Accuracy Program (WAP) is. The company noted that it regretted renewing its ICANN accreditation, even though it’s necessary to register domain names. As EasyDNS notes, the whole WAP program is insane, and is almost designed to force domain owners to lose their domains — especially if they want to keep a modicum of privacy. Under the program any time you change or renew your domains, you now will get an email requiring you to “verify” your whois data. As EasyDNS notes, since it’s an email, it’s designed in a way that looks very much like a phishing attempt, meaning many domain holders will ignore it. And if you ignore it… within 15 days, your registrar is supposed to suspend your domain. That program went into effect yesterday, and I imagine it won’t be long before we hear the shrieks of pain as it impacts website owners. As EasyDNS notes:

You can thank ICANN for this policy, because if it were up to us, and you tasked us with coming up with the most idiotic, damaging, phish-friendly, disaster prone policy that accomplishes less than nothing and is utterly pointless, I question whether we would have been able to pull it off at this level. We’re simply out of our league here.

But, that’s not all! The good folks at Namecheap (who have sponsored us in the past here on the blog) have sent out an alarm (along with the EFF and Fight for the Future) over another proposal from ICANN concerning privacy and proxy services that many domain owners use to keep their information private. This is necessary these days, in part, because as anyone who owns a domain knows, that information gets scraped and you get spammed. A lot. And also, sometimes, people say things on the internet that they want to be anonymous in saying. And proxy services help you do that. But ICANN is effectively trying to kill that. Namecheap has put together the site RespectOurPrivacy.com to explain the issue and to ask people to tell ICANN to reject this proposal — which was put together by MarkMonitor. Yes, MarkMonitor, the company famous for being engaged in all sorts of bogus censorship and takedown requests:

Under new guidelines proposed by MarkMonitor and others who represent the same industries that backed SOPA, domain holders with sites associated to “commercial activity” will no longer be able to protect their private information with WHOIS protection services. “Commercial activity” casts a wide net, which means that a vast number of domain holders will be affected. Your privacy provider could be forced to publish your contact data in WHOIS or even give it out to anyone who complains about your website, without due process. Why should a small business owner have to publicize her home address just to have a website?

We think your privacy should be protected, regardless of whether your website is personal or commercial, and your confidential info should not be revealed without due process. If you agree, it?s time to tell ICANN.

That site has more info and shows you how to contact ICANN to protest this move.

You can also look directly at the proposal itself, which notes that this view is not universal and there is disagreement over where the final rules will end up, but some have argued that:

“domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.”

If MarkMonitor’s involvement didn’t tip you off, this is really a proposal of Hollywood who hates the fact that people can be anonymous online. It was presented to Congress last month by Steve Metalitz under the guise of the “Coalition for Online Accountability” — a “coalition” made up of the MPAA, RIAA, ESA and SIIA (all copyright extremists). If you recognize Metalitz’s name, it’s because it’s come up before. He’s one of the entertainment industry’s favorite lawyers, who helped push ACTA, SOPA and other bad copyright proposals. And now suddenly he’s “concerned” about online accountability? Really? The main goal of the proposal is to destroy anonymity online by only allowing it in cases Hollywood approves of. In his presentation, Metalitz noted that there is only a “legitimate role for proxy registrations in limited circumstances.” Have you applied for your special license to be anonymous yet? The MPAA and ICANN need to approve it first…

Hopefully ICANN backs away from these plans and starts to get its act together. ICANN could and should be a powerful force in favor of an open internet with strong privacy protections — and not encouraging programs that require giving up your privacy just to have a domain name.

Filed Under: icann, privacy, proxy, registrations, verification, whois, whois accuracy, whois accuracy program
Companies: icann

City Of London Police Arrest Creator Of Anti-Censorship Proxy Service Based On Hollywood's Say So

from the out-of-control dept

We’ve been covering the extreme and misinformed attempts by the City of London Police to become Hollywood’s personal police force online (despite only having jurisdiction for the one square mile known as the City of London). As we’ve noted, the City of London Police don’t seem to understand internet technology at all, nor do they have any jurisdiction to pull down websites. Yet, despite the total lack of a court order, many clueless registrars see letterhead from a police department and assume everything must be legit, even though this completely violates ICANN policy for domain registrars. Much of this is done in “partnership” with legacy players from the industry, who the police seem to listen to without any skepticism at all. It would be like the NYPD giving control of banking fraud investigations to Goldman Sachs.

As we were just pointing out, while the City of London Police seem to think it’s “obvious” what is and what is not a “pirate site”, oftentimes it’s not at all easy to figure that out. That was made clear last week when the organization helping the City of London Police reposted an entire BBC article about their cooperation (soon after our post went up, that company’s post disappeared quietly with no notice). And now, TorrentFreak is reporting the City of London Police have “seized” an open proxy service called Immunicity, that was set up as an anti-censorship tool. Not only that, but they’ve also arrested the operator. The site itself is engaged in no copyright infringement at all. But its entire website has been replaced thanks to a bogus claim by the City of London Police.

The police even seem to brag that they’re in the bag for the legacy entertainment companies:

According to Chief Inspector Andy Fyfe, the arrest is a prime example of a successful partnership between the copyright industry and local law enforcement.

?This week?s operation highlights how PIPCU, working in partnership with the creative and advertising industries is targeting every aspect of how copyrighting material is illegally being made available to internet users,? Fyfe says.

So, yes, it’s the police “partnering” with a legacy industry that has a long and demonstrated history of bogus attacks on new technologies that challenge its business model. And rather than actually view such claims with skepticism, the police lap it up and take down websites without anything even approaching a court order.

And to show just how confused they are, the main “industry” representative helping the police here basically admits to the belief that any proxy service must be illegal, because the industry doesn’t like it:

Commenting on the arrest, FACT Director Kieron Sharp argues that these proxy sites and services are just as illegal as the blocked sites themselves.

?Internet users have sought ways to continue to access the sites by getting round the blocking put in place by the ISPs. One of the ways to do this is to use proxy servers. This operation is a major step in tackling those providing such services,? Sharp notes.

Of course, based on that reasoning, the very same VPNs that many of us use to protect our internet surfing from surveillance would be equally considered “illegal.” Basically anything that challenges the business model of these legacy companies must be illegal and the City of London Police seem to think they can arrest those associated with them. Talk about going way overboard and creating massive chilling effects…

Filed Under: andy fyfe, city of london police, copyright, kieron sharp, proxy
Companies: fact

UK Pirate Party Pressured Into Taking Down Proxy… Leading To Other Proxies Opening Up

from the if-you-need-to-whac-a-mole dept

It’s really quite ridiculous how much time, money and effort the various arms of the entertainment industry have spent trying to get certain countries to “block” The Pirate Bay. Every single time it happens, it seems to drive up traffic to the site. Those who want to use it don’t suddenly decide “gee, now I’m going to start buying what I formerly pirated.” They just think “where’s a proxy to get to the site” and they find one easily enough because they’re everywhere. The industry then goes on a wild goose chase seeking to take them all down which is impossible. So they get a few morale-boosting wins… and everyone still gets to go to The Pirate Bay. Couldn’t that time be spent more effectively?

The latest is that, over in the UK, where BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) was threatening to sue the leaders of the UK Pirate Party personally for setting up a proxy, the Party eventually shut it down knowing that the costs of fighting such a legal battle would be extreme and damaging.

But, of course, it’s unlikely that actually stopped anyone from reaching TPB, which is available through a variety of other means. In fact, soon after the UK Pirate Party took down its proxy, the Pirate Parties in some other countries put up their own proxies (and, of course, there are tons of general proxies out there). BPI can try to go after these political parties in other countries, or it can demand that ISPs block those proxies also, but more and more will just keep popping up. And none of that will convince a single person to buy something they weren’t planning to buy in the first place. It just makes you wonder what they think they’re accomplishing.

Filed Under: bans, free speech, pirate party, proxy
Companies: the pirate bay

BPI Threatens To Sue UK Pirate Party Leaders Personally Due To Internet Proxy

from the wac-wac-wac'ing-that-mole dept

With the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) successfully getting access to The Pirate Bay blocked via many UK ISPs, it’s apparently turned its quixotic sights to the UK Pirate Party for daring to set up a proxy — as if there aren’t hundreds, if not thousands, of other existing proxies out there, and plenty of ways for people to get to the site if they really want to. And, rather than just threaten legal action against the Pirate Party UK (PPUK), the BPI has lovingly sent threat letters to six members of the PPUK National Executive, suggesting that it is ready to sue each of them personally. The BPI is claiming that it has to do this, since it can’t sue the party directly, and apparently takes offense at some claims that this is an attempt to bankrupt the leaders of the PPUK. Of course, that’s hogwash. Being threatened with a personal lawsuit — especially by an organization that represents a group of multinational, multibillion dollar companies — is, without question, a threat of being bankrupted. The BPI does have another choice: give up this silly game of whac-a-mole, stop trying to censor the internet, and teach its member companies how to adapt with new and smarter business models. But, apparently, it’s easier to bankrupt your critics.

Filed Under: free speech, pirate party, proxy, threats, uk, uk pirate party
Companies: bpi

Court Goes Censorship Crazy Against Dutch Pirate Party

from the whac-whac-whac-a-mole dept

We’ve been covering the attempts by Dutch anti-piracy operator BREIN to play a legal game of whac-a-mole to block The Pirate Bay by forcing ISPs to block access, then blocking proxies that provide access, and now blocking anyone from even talking about ways to get to The Pirate Bay. Bizarrely, a court in The Hague has agreed, and has come out in favor of blocking the Dutch Pirate Party from even discussing some of this stuff:

The Court specifically ruled that the Party’s reverse proxy has to remain offline. It was further ordered that Pirate Bay domains and IP-addresses have to be filtered from the Pirate Party’s generic proxy. In addition the Pirate Party can’t link to other websites that allow the public to bypass the blockade. These orders are only valid when paired with an encouragement to circumvent.

Basically, telling people how to get around a block, even if it’s linking to a general proxy (not a specific one) is now barred in the Netherlands. The fact that the court now is telling proxies how they can work is a huge overreach. That seems like a pretty blatant restriction on free speech. The thing is, do the folks at BREIN actually think this charade is effective? All it seems to be doing is enraging tons of people in the Netherlands, and doing absolutely nothing to stop them from going to The Pirate Bay.

Filed Under: brein, censorship, netherlands, proxy, the hague, whac-a-mole
Companies: the pirate bay

UK High Court Expands Censorship Regime: Orders The Pirate Bay To Be Blocked

from the and-so-it-goes dept

This was mostly expected since earlier this year, but the UK’s High Court has now ordered a bunch of ISPs to block The Pirate Bay. This is pretty unfortunate, given that we were just talking about how UK-based musician Dan Bull used The Pirate Bay to help him get on the charts. That avenue is about to be closed off to up and coming musicians… all because the legacy recording industry remains too closed-minded to figure out how to adapt and provide consumers what they want. And, of course, the blockade won’t even be remotely effective. Lots of people will just use VPNs or proxies to get what they want anyway. Even more ridiculous is that it will hinder perfectly legitimate activity. Just a few weeks ago I was in the UK, and I was doing some research on The Pirate Bay’s “Promo Bay.” I wouldn’t have been able to do that if The Pirate Bay was blocked. I did nothing illegal, and yet the UK courts want to treat it as such. That’s sad.

Filed Under: censorship, dan bull, isp, promo bay, proxy, vpn
Companies: the pirate bay

Dutch Pirate Party Refuses To Shut Down Proxy Service Based On Demand From Anti-Piracy Group

from the standing-its-ground dept

The Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is somewhat famous for its overreaching efforts. While it succeeded in getting ISPs to block The Pirate Bay’s website, it’s been going after a bunch of proxy sites that have helped people get around the block. Its latest move may run into some difficulty however. The Dutch Pirate Party has its own proxy offering, and BREIN is demanding they turn it off. The Pirate Party, however, is standing its ground. As TorrentFreak reports:

Last week the local Pirate Party also received a letter from BREIN, demanding the shutdown of their Pirate Bay proxy site hosted at tpb.piratenpartij.nl. However, unlike the site owners that were previously contacted by the group, the Pirate Party is not caving in. They would rather fight the case in court.

Today the Party informed BREIN that the proxy site will stay online. To show that The Pirate Bay can be a useful communication tool the Pirate Party sent the letter through a torrent file, hosted on the BitTorrent site at the center of the dispute.

“The demands are ridiculous,” Pirate Party chairman Dirk Poot told TorrentFreak.

“A private lobbying organization should not be allowed to be the censor of the Dutch internet. We were also amazed to find an ex-parte decision attached, threatening Dutch minors with €1000 per day fines for operating their proxy. If we would have yielded, their trick would immediately be played out against numerous other private citizens.”

The larger point in all of this, of course, is just how completely and utterly useless BREIN’s game of whac-a-mole is. There are so many proxy sites out there, and many are used for perfectly legitimate reasons. Trying to block every single one of them is a fool’s errand. Those who want to go to TPB will figure out ways to get there.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, brein, proxy, whac-a-mole
Companies: the pirate bay

Something's Not Right: German User Has To Use Chinese Proxy To See New Music Video

from the ah,-gema dept

We’ve been writing about German music collection society GEMA’s bizarre fight against YouTube for a few years now, in which all major music videos are blocked from YouTube in Germany because GEMA is suing YouTube and refuses to even discuss a potential license until the lawsuit is over. As we noted recently, this is even frustrating the labels who feel that GEMA is costing them serious money in not just doing a deal to make videos available. While researching something else on Twitter, I came across this telling tweet, from an individual in Germany talking about how they had to use a Chinese web proxy just to watch a new Sting video, and properly notes just how screwed up the world is when people in Germany are relying on Chinese web proxies just to watch music videos. I’m still trying to figure out what good this does anyone… other than GEMA.

Filed Under: china, germany, licensing, music, proxy, sting, videos
Companies: gema

SOPA And Its Broad Regulation Of VPNs, Proxies And Other Important Tools

from the is-this-what-we-really-want? dept

There are so many scary parts to SOPA, it’s taking some time to pull out all the pieces. One of the scarier parts of SOPA that isn’t found in PROTECT IP, is the addition of a form of an “anti-circumvention” rule, which makes it illegal to try to get around any blockade on the US government’s blacklist. Like the DMCA’s dreadful anti-circumvention clause, this one is also vague and overly broad — and would create problems for all sorts of legal services. The EFF is listing out some perfectly legal services that would suddenly be in legal crosshairs:

In this new bill, Hollywood has expanded its censorship ambitions. No longer content to just blacklist entries in the Domain Name System, this version targets software developers and distributors as well. It allows the Attorney General (doing Hollywood or trademark holders’ bidding) to go after more or less anyone who provides or offers a product or service that could be used to get around DNS blacklisting orders. This language is clearly aimed at Mozilla, which took a principled stand in refusing to assist the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to censor the domain name system, but we are also concerned that it could affect the open source community, internet innovation, and software freedom more broadly:

* Do you write or distribute VPN, proxy, privacy or anonymization software? You might have to build in a censorship mechanism ? or find yourself in a legal fight with the United States Attorney General. * Even some of the most fundamental and widely used Internet security software, such as SSH, includes built-in proxy functionality. This kind of software is installed on hundreds of millions of computers, and is an indispensable tool for systems administration professionals, but it could easily become a target for censorship orders under the new bill. * Do you work with or distribute zone files for gTLDs? Want to keep them accurate? Too bad ? Hollywood might argue that if you provide a complete (i.e., uncensored) list, you are illegally helping people bypass SOPA orders. * Want to write a client-side DNSSEC resolver that uses multiple servers until it finds a valid signed entry? Again, you could be in a fight with the U.S. Attorney General.

This is how the Great Firewall of China works as well — by threatening service providers who don’t help block with the idea that they might be liable if they don’t figure out “some way” to block things. Then everyone scrambles to censor well beyond what is required under the law, just to avoid liability. The end result of this will make the internet significantly less secure. VPN providers will go out of business or be severely limited. This is exactly the opposite of the direction we should be moving in.