Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. consider nuclear option

Snake1235 · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 4:04 pm

Quote:

The battle against SOPA reached fever pitch just before Christmas when a Reddit-led boycott of Go Daddy over the domain registrar’s support for the controversial legislation led to some 37,000 domains leaving the company for greener, freedom-loving pastures. Go Daddy, meanwhile, is now buried in complaints that it’s improperly blocking domain transfer requests to rival Namecheap.

With debate over SOPA’s future tabled until Congress reconvenes, you might think the issue would have entered a similar lull, but that’s not happened. According to Markham Erickson, head of the NetCoalition trade association, there’s been talk of a so-called “nuclear option,” in which the likes of Google, Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo! would go simultaneously dark to protest the legislation to highlight the fundamental danger the legislation poses to the function of the internet.

There’s been no formal decision on the matter, and the companies in question obviously risk consumer anger and backlash over any suspension of services. There is, however, safety in numbers — and a few simple sentences identifying why the blackout is in place will ensure that the majority of the rage flows in the proper direction.

It’s a trump card that the likes of the MPAA and RIAA have no way of matching. There’s solid technical data behind the tech industry’s claims that implementing SOPA could damage the function of the internet, and plenty of evidence (some of it just weeks old) that copyright holders will abuse existing judicial processes to eliminate content they don’t like. The MPAA and RIAA are willing to talk about jobs lost to piracy in the abstract, but won’t (and can’t) promise that passing SOPA will allow them to hire thousands of Americans or create jobs in a statement they’d be held accountable for fulfilling.

There’s no information yet on when the blackout would occur, but the most likely date right now would be January 23. The Senate is scheduled to debate SOPA on January 24. Speaking in December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid highlighted the importance of passing the legislation. “This is a bipartisan piece of legislation which is extremely important,” Reid said Saturday. “I repeat, it is bipartisan. I hope we can have a productive couple of days, pass this bill, and move on to other matters.”

Bring on the nukes.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/111543-google-amazon-facebook-and-twitter-considering-nuclear-option-to-protest-sopa

Eadwulf · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 4:46 pm

Get WoW and Facebook in on this and there'll be a holy war on such a scale that it could only be described as "galactic".

Spirographed · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 5:38 pm

Amazing! What a great idea. This is war games Fuzzy Bunny

.

J@nr0k · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 6:06 pm

Yes, this is good.

Riptide · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 6:34 pm

I approve.

Thedefencema · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 7:19 pm

Eadwulf wrote:

Get WoW and Facebook in on this and there'll be a holy war on such a scale that it could only be described as "galactic".

I so wish now there was a like button

Thedefencema

Jackstick · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 8:48 pm

This is not going to happen.

Saten Ruiko · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 9:08 pm

I can see Google, Twitter, and Yahoo doing this. Amazon, eBay, and Facebook, I would be very surprised if they did.

But glad.

Blackmage172 · **Posted:** January 4th, 2012, 10:08 pm

J@nr0k wrote:

Yes, this is good.

Landerpurex · **Posted:** January 5th, 2012, 3:53 pm

It's kind of funny that anyone and everyone are making paper reasons that this act is 'bad', when all they really want is piracy to continue (relatively unhindered). And why shouldn't they? 49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.

Just saying, people seem outrageously paranoid about this and are blowing it waaaay out of proportion. How in the world would a piracy act threaten free speech? How is it censorship? I don't get it. All I see is people saying "this bill is too vague. It will hurt x." Which is the case with most things congress does. Though the punishments do seem far too harsh for the crimes. But there seems to be a fix for that...DON'T PIRATE THINGS!

I can't illegally download because I use my university's network, which is SCARY good at catching people who pirate things and act accordingly. Regardless of that, I try my best to support bands/authors/creators of media I like in a legal way. Though I often sample things on Youtube or whatever then buy accordingly, I could just as easily turn on the radio or go to a bookstore. :?:

I guess in the end I don't give a Fuzzy Bunny

either way. :-|

Eadwulf · **Posted:** January 5th, 2012, 8:44 pm

Landerpurex wrote:

49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.

...

Dakota Lesmercy · **Posted:** January 5th, 2012, 9:22 pm

wow... this should be interesting... lol

Dakota.

Landerpurex · **Posted:** January 5th, 2012, 11:31 pm

Eadwulf wrote:

Landerpurex wrote:

49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.

...

JACKIE CHAN

So worth it.

You get the point.

Ventrue · **Posted:** January 6th, 2012, 12:15 am

Landerpurex wrote:

It's kind of funny that anyone and everyone are making paper reasons that this act is 'bad', when all they really want is piracy to continue (relatively unhindered). And why shouldn't they? 49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.

Just saying, people seem outrageously paranoid about this and are blowing it waaaay out of proportion. How in the world would a piracy act threaten free speech? How is it censorship? I don't get it. All I see is people saying "this bill is too vague. It will hurt x." Which is the case with most things congress does. Though the punishments do seem far too harsh for the crimes. But there seems to be a fix for that...DON'T PIRATE THINGS!

I can't illegally download because I use my university's network, which is SCARY good at catching people who pirate things and act accordingly. Regardless of that, I try my best to support bands/authors/creators of media I like in a legal way. Though I often sample things on Youtube or whatever then buy accordingly, I could just as easily turn on the radio or go to a bookstore. :?:

I guess in the end I don't give a Fuzzy Bunny

either way. :-|

I think people are more upset with the precedent that this would set; the government likes getting their greasy controlling hands on everything. I haven't read too much upon it, but I've had a few people talk to me about it, and essentially it would ruin the "freedom" of the internet as there would be additional monitoring.

If this came to fruition, I'd develop an encryption method to prevent them from sniffing my packets. Something like tor, except on steroids.

Omegaman · **Posted:** January 6th, 2012, 1:39 am

I'll get the drinks.

Landerpurex · **Posted:** January 6th, 2012, 2:40 am

Ventrue wrote:

Landerpurex wrote:

It's kind of funny that anyone and everyone are making paper reasons that this act is 'bad', when all they really want is piracy to continue (relatively unhindered). And why shouldn't they? 49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.

Just saying, people seem outrageously paranoid about this and are blowing it waaaay out of proportion. How in the world would a piracy act threaten free speech? How is it censorship? I don't get it. All I see is people saying "this bill is too vague. It will hurt x." Which is the case with most things congress does. Though the punishments do seem far too harsh for the crimes. But there seems to be a fix for that...DON'T PIRATE THINGS!

I can't illegally download because I use my university's network, which is SCARY good at catching people who pirate things and act accordingly. Regardless of that, I try my best to support bands/authors/creators of media I like in a legal way. Though I often sample things on Youtube or whatever then buy accordingly, I could just as easily turn on the radio or go to a bookstore. :?:

I guess in the end I don't give a Fuzzy Bunny

either way. :-|

I think people are more upset with the precedent that this would set; the government likes getting their greasy controlling hands on everything. I haven't read too much upon it, but I've had a few people talk to me about it, and essentially it would ruin the "freedom" of the internet as there would be additional monitoring.

If this came to fruition, I'd develop an encryption method to prevent them from sniffing my packets. Something like tor, except on steroids.

Fair enough.

So people are worried about it being a gateway bill. :laugh:

Snake1235 · **Posted:** January 6th, 2012, 9:30 am

I'm hearing a lot about something called DNSSEC. I'm no expert on this and cannot tell you if the claims that this bill would 'break' the internet are true or exaggerated, but here's how the technical side of this has been explained to me in simplified terms:

Let's say you do something on the internet. The FBI gets to check whatever files and such are transferred in this action. That is an invasion of privacy and none of the government's business.

Now, the even more interesting part:

Let's say you do something on the internet. Let's say that certain something is done with extra security, such as checking your bank account online. Now, in order for the government to check you out and confirm that you're not some vicious, maniacal pirate, the FBI will need your important data. How does it get to the FBI? It goes OUT of security to get to our all-knowing and altruistic government. Hey, doesn't that sound like a great way to expose yourself to identity theft?

That's roughly how it's explained to me. There are other issues, but the bottom line is this:

Regardless of anything you hear from the government, these are idiots in Washington D.C. who have little to no idea about the highly technical issues they want to write bills about. They are also in the pockets of the RIAA and the MPAA. For God's sake, a few years ago one of them was yelling about the internet being a series of tubes. They're not only incompetent, but they're also corrupt.

In addition (and this applies to SOPA, PIPA, the NDAA, and similar acts), all it takes is a bureaucrat to write down that you are an offender. The right to defend yourself is gone. You don't see any way that could be abused? Stop thinking it can't happen; the federal government is NOT altruistic. It is built on politics, which we all know is a dirty game.

People need to stop bending over to these statists. They are not there to help you; they aim to control you. We give them their power; they are not elite.

Landerpurex · **Posted:** January 6th, 2012, 6:10 pm

Snake1235 wrote:

They are not there to help you; they aim to control you.

I don't understand how checking if someone's a pirate equates to needing to know their bank IDs, passwords, account numbers, etc.

But hey, what do I know.

Bottom line is, I agree this bill is bogus but I think people are completely overreacting, as the quoted sentence above indicates.

Kikori · **Posted:** January 6th, 2012, 10:37 pm

Landerpurex wrote:

Bottom line is, I agree this bill is bogus but I think people are completely overreacting, as the quoted sentence above indicates.

There is one thing valid about his post that makes me and a few others worry.
These are people who know nothing about the Internet and nothing about Internet Security trying to write bills that grant them permission to put their foot in the door on what they believe is right and wrong, what is and isn't linked to copyright infringement / illegal downloading, etc.
These are people who have shown willingness to simply say "This is how it is, you have these permissions and owe us this to enforce it and worse if you go against it" trying to play guardians online.
And these are people who are visibly corrupt with power who speak loudly, trying to wave a big stick around online.

Snake1235 · **Posted:** January 7th, 2012, 12:46 am

Landerpurex wrote:

Snake1235 wrote:

They are not there to help you; they aim to control you.

I don't understand how checking if someone's a pirate equates to needing to know their bank IDs, passwords, account numbers, etc.

But hey, what do I know.

Bottom line is, I agree this bill is bogus but I think people are completely overreacting, as the quoted sentence above indicates.

Money is power, as is information in the wrong hands. Make no mistake: NEVER believe the stated, intended purpose of a bill is the only intended purpose. There are always other agendas. Additionally, why do they NEED to know my information if they're just checking for pirates?

Again, the government is not around to help. It is around to control.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. consider nuclear option

Who is online