ICANN Refuses to Accredit Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Due to His ‘Background’(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
ICANN Refuses to Accredit Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Due to His ‘Background’
https://torrentfreak.com/icann-refuses-to-accredit-pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-due-to-his-background-210303/
307 comments
"They have experience with people who tried to blow up things "from inside" in the past, so clearly they've developed countermeasures ready for that scenario."
Who are some people who tried to "blow things up from inside"?
This sounds like it would make for an interesting HN discussion.
I vaguely recall a CEO they had who, after leaving, asked to see the books and was stymied.
Who are some people who tried to "blow things up from inside"?
This sounds like it would make for an interesting HN discussion.
I vaguely recall a CEO they had who, after leaving, asked to see the books and was stymied.
You are probably thinking of Karl Auerbach. He was not CEO, but he was elected to the board when ICANN at least pretended to have a democratic element. Once he got in, he asked to see the books, which he was entitled to do; ICANN leadership refused, and the matter had to be settled through the courts, which took almost two years (and presumably, a chunk of ICANN cash for legal fees); Auerbach won. Around the same time, Andy Müller-Maguhn, journalist and CCC member was elected in the same role for the European region, and again started asking questions of transparency. ICANN leadership decided that this democracy thing had gone too far, and promptly eliminated publicly-elected members from its board (around 2002/2003, if i remember correctly).
I have no ill will against Sunde, I have used Piratebay from the start.
But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason.
Sunde choose pirate life. Crying about how you can't be respected businessman and convicted pirate is just pathetic.
But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason.
Sunde choose pirate life. Crying about how you can't be respected businessman and convicted pirate is just pathetic.
He has been punished for his wrong doing, which had nothing to do with DNS. The least ICANN could do it tell Sunde exactly what they are affaird he’ll do to misuse an accreditation. Some one with an accreditation sold Sunde and team piratebay.org, so they can’t be worried that he’ll register a ton of pirate domains, he can easily get those elsewhere.
People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.
People shouldn’t be punished for life, especially not by excluding them from areas that are completely unrelated.
Ah, right, ICANN is run by IP lawyers, the pirate bay is not relevant to DNS, but is relevant to those IP lawyers, that's why they don't like him: https://nitter.dark.fail/i/status/1366522131811627009
Also https://njal.la/blog/we-dont-have-enemies/ - another reason to dislike him.
Also https://njal.la/blog/we-dont-have-enemies/ - another reason to dislike him.
What's not to like here? That blog post outlines how they're fighting for fair representation in the copyright dispute process.
MPAA doesn't like that their requests are denied.
[deleted]
nabla9(12)
They don't have "that" box in the application (whether you have a conviction). They have a different box in the application (whether you have a conviction for fraud or similar) that according to the story, ICANN agree Sunde did not need to check.
That box said fraud or similar in the last 10 years. Even if you agree that his TPB charges fit the "and similar" part, he wasn't charged with anything in the last decade, since 2008 is over 10 years ago.
Thank you for the downvotes. it proves you care a lot to protect the sanctity status of a professional manipulator (to me, to you he can be Jesus). Please when you downvote take the time to explain why you downvoted but dont insutl me or my gender or my country. If it unrelated to misogyny and hate for non-whites, then fee freel to explain exactly why you are downvoting me. I really want to know and engage in convo if your downvoting is made not out of political allegiance and blind following of the politics of Mr Kolmisopi but because as free thinking individuals you have a logical argument to downvote me. Thank you for the attention thus far.
As I understood the article, the application asks about convictions for fraud. Sunde was convicted of criminal copyright infringement, which is not fraud nor substantially similar.
A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.
A "no convicted felons" rule might be entirely reasonable, but it doesn't appear they have one, and they should not move the goalposts after an application (with a fee) has been submitted.
>"But denying application because you have a conviction is completely fair and expected. They have that box in the application for reason."
Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.
Nope. Whatever he did he had paid for it. With the very rare exceptions those checkboxes should not be allowed at all.
Some of the existing board members tried to sell the .org registry to speculators for a quick buck. That seems worse.
Punishing people for having been punished is not "completely fair". It's irrational, vindictive and counter productive.
Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.
Convicted people do not simply disappear when you take away their options.
How far into the future should a criminal be an outcast? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?
Then broaden rules to disrespect people and you're set.
Any conviction in any country?
Sorry to say that, but this is 'ur-fascism' at its best.
The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists).
Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them.
You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated.
Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?)
BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden.
Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.
The difference here is that the nazi's pre-condemned anyone who were of a give ethnic background(jews) or believe (communists).
Unlike them, you are praying that the society condemn over prejudice, people based on their past behavior, placing a star on their chest and denying them basic rights, which may start with "innocent" rights like these being taken from them.
You can only punish people when a considered criminal activity occurs, never assuming someone have ill intentions over their past behavior and therefore should be denied the rights of whatever is being negotiated.
Don't forget either that with such laws and ethical triggers in place governments, companies and individuals might just game the system and threat someone by forcing him into prison for bogus reason destroying his life even after he is free. (And how can we call this dystopian reality freedom?)
BTW The Sunde prison is exactly this case, but there are even more proeminent cases as Assange or Snowden.
Your are talking only about ICANN here of course, but the core of the issue you are defending here will inevitable lead to the consequences i'm exposing above.
I'd have to agree. If you are going to become a trusted party in a context where people have to trust that you are willing to follow rules, even when you may disagree with them, then you will have a problem with someone whose identity is to not follow rules.
I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so.
One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)
I'm sure Sunde would agree that he doesn't follow the rules if he disagrees with them. And proudly so.
One may have one's own opinion on why he did this and whether or not anyone turning it into publicity gold by being outraged is a naive moron, but one would, of course, keep those opinions to oneself. :-)
Wait, if I crossed a street on red signal, I now have a stigma for life for not following rules?
No, but if you were someone infamous for ignoring traffic rules systematically over many years, because you thought that there should be no traffic rules, resulting in very visible legal wrangling, it would be optimistic of you to apply for a position as someone who administers driving tests.
You extended to rules in general, not some specific rules.
> They basically admitted that they don’t like me. They’ve banned me for nothing else than my political views. This is typical discrimination. Considering I have no one to appeal to except them, it’s concerning, since they control the actual fucking center of the internet.
Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.
Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.
> Next-level deplatforming. From a non-profit. That essential controls the internet. Yay.
And it’s pretty rich coming from ICANN after they eliminated .org price caps (coincidentally) before their associates tried to usurp the registry for private equity interests.
It’s almost funny to see these multi billion dollar grifters disparaging someone for theft (copyright infringement).
And it’s pretty rich coming from ICANN after they eliminated .org price caps (coincidentally) before their associates tried to usurp the registry for private equity interests.
It’s almost funny to see these multi billion dollar grifters disparaging someone for theft (copyright infringement).
I wonder what a decentralized version of DNS would look like.
Consider checking out HNS.[0]
[0] https://www.handshake.org
[0] https://www.handshake.org
Or Namecoin, or Blockstack, or OpenAlias, or ENS, or....
That's tor.
Tor's onion addresses aren't human-meaningful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle
People don't type addresses, they open google, type "facebook" there and click the first link. Phishing often relies on similarity between different domain names. Switching to tor domains will remove assumption of reliability of domain name reading.
It will be harder to verify whether an address is real or fake. You would have to trust the search engines. Offloading the responsibility to google basically makes google the DNS provider
Phishing wouldn't work if addresses were easy to verify. And safe browsing services wouldn't be needed either.
And replaces it with what exactly? A trusted source of truth? Meaning Google? Haha.
There is approximately zero overlap between the userbase of Tor and the group of people who get to Facebook by Googling "facebook".
Userbase of tor has no problem with onion domains.
I do :)
I don't know how you got here today but I:
1. Opened a new tab.
2. Pressed the n key.
3. Pressed enter.
Readable addresses means you can go to some site for the first time and be sure it's the address you wanted. It's not a SHA256 checksum, but it's human-doable in some seconds.
one that comes to mind is urbit.org :)
No way, man. This isn't cancel culture. This is just a non-profit exercising their rights. If he doesn't like it, all he has to do is create his own internet and a procedure for assigning DNS names and IP addresses and then get the whole world to switch over to it. /s
When you're a state-sponsored monopoly the rules are a bit different whether you're a private entity or not. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)
(I know ICANN is not currently being sponsored by the US government anymore, but they were given their monopoly that way)
>all he has to do is create his own internet and a procedure for assigning DNS names and IP addresses
Or, y'know, just set up a copy of the DNS system using the existing software and standards for the existing Internet, but using different root servers.
DNS is well documented and open source for the most part, so it's not as if ICANN's control of the root servers means they can't be bypassed.
Or, y'know, just set up a copy of the DNS system using the existing software and standards for the existing Internet, but using different root servers.
DNS is well documented and open source for the most part, so it's not as if ICANN's control of the root servers means they can't be bypassed.
Or use one of the many alternative DNS that the market already created to solve this problem?
Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.
Continuously fixing ICANN’s decisions keeps alternatives from catching on.
Alternatives are meaningless unless they can get mainstream adoption from the software makers of the majority.
Exactly. It's a free market. Come on.
There is no free market. Just copyrights / patents alone show that. If I had invented something or way more likely came up with something obvious I should not be looking over my shoulder and waiting for some corporation to sue me for rounded corners or button placed on the form. Suddenly those big corps run crying to their daddy for protection.
“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”
Deplatforming?
Deplatforming?
Time for anti-trust lawsuits.
Doesn’t work when the monopoly is created by the government.
In what jurisdiction(s)?
His home jurisdiction, I suppose.
Comically, this is what the riaa did with making claims against Sunde based on US laws and applying them to Sweden.
I think ICANN is a US corporation, but if they are impacting a Swedish company I’m sure there’s some local law that can be used.
Comically, this is what the riaa did with making claims against Sunde based on US laws and applying them to Sweden.
I think ICANN is a US corporation, but if they are impacting a Swedish company I’m sure there’s some local law that can be used.
US law is default but ICANN connection to the UN could allow someone to sue in any UN registered country. Though, I am not an expert on law.
I thought ICANN has no connection to the UN.
It used to have a connection to the US department of commerce but that ended years ago.
It used to have a connection to the US department of commerce but that ended years ago.
Los Angeles.
[deleted]
> he concealed criminal history.
But he didn't. The box on the form said "Have you been convicted for fraud?". He hasn't, so he didn't check the box.
Maybe the ICANN-we-dont-want-to-police-the-internet-but-then-we-do-it-anyway-people need more boxes on their forms.
But he didn't. The box on the form said "Have you been convicted for fraud?". He hasn't, so he didn't check the box.
Maybe the ICANN-we-dont-want-to-police-the-internet-but-then-we-do-it-anyway-people need more boxes on their forms.
Is it legal to discriminate based on past convictions? What if a parent was convicted, can it be inherited?
In the US, yes. “Convicted felon” is not a protected class. Many businesses ask during your application or hiring process if you’ve ever been “convicted of a felony”. The idea is: “we don’t want a thief manning the cash registers!” There’s also the general misconception that “if you’re in, or were in, prison, it’s because you’re a bad person.” But the problem is: they served their debt to society (jail), and innocent people are jailed all the time.
If they were still a threat to society after 5 years or whatever, then they shouldn’t’ve been sentenced to just 5 years. And with innocent people being convicted, the bar to get it fixed is very high because (in some states), you have to not only prove you’re innocence, but that the prosecution messed up (such as withholding evidence). And don’t forget about prosecutorial immunity!
And if it is fixed, how do you answer that question? Yes, you were convicted, but it’s not on your record because you proved your innocence. Yes? No? Answer yes, and you’re denied. Answer no, and when they find out about it, you’re fired, and can only hope your bosses will fight for you and win.
It’s sad really.
If they were still a threat to society after 5 years or whatever, then they shouldn’t’ve been sentenced to just 5 years. And with innocent people being convicted, the bar to get it fixed is very high because (in some states), you have to not only prove you’re innocence, but that the prosecution messed up (such as withholding evidence). And don’t forget about prosecutorial immunity!
And if it is fixed, how do you answer that question? Yes, you were convicted, but it’s not on your record because you proved your innocence. Yes? No? Answer yes, and you’re denied. Answer no, and when they find out about it, you’re fired, and can only hope your bosses will fight for you and win.
It’s sad really.
Would letting a murderer manning the cash registers be dangerous too?
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, I don't know.
Presumably if they were let out of prison it's been decided that they are not longer a risk or have paid their debt to society.
So no, convicted murderers should not be prevented from being a cashier, nor any other job they qualify for. At any rate, the best way to steer someone back into crime is to take away their ability to have a job. How else are they supposed to survive?
Presumably if they were let out of prison it's been decided that they are not longer a risk or have paid their debt to society.
So no, convicted murderers should not be prevented from being a cashier, nor any other job they qualify for. At any rate, the best way to steer someone back into crime is to take away their ability to have a job. How else are they supposed to survive?
If he got out of prison than that suggests he's not a serial killer and thus safe to undertake in societal activities, like shopping or manning a cash register. Really the only real to deny a job to a released convict is if their crime directly correlates to the job, I.E. don't hire someone who was convicted for embezzling $200 million as your accountant.
You know the GPs answer to this is No. Perhaps explain why you think it _is_ more dangerous?
Theft is relevant to cash, but murder isn't.
Well, if they’re out of prison, then it’s been decided that they’re no longer a threat to society. Because, in a lot of prisons, you can be kept past your date on certain conditions. So why not let them man a register?
I’m not saying you can’t keep a close eye on them. I’m sure a manager would be doing that. What I’m saying is: in America, society has decided that you’re worthless if you go to prison. We try so hard to keep people from reintegrating into the real world, it’s no wonder our recidivism rate is so high.
I’m not saying you can’t keep a close eye on them. I’m sure a manager would be doing that. What I’m saying is: in America, society has decided that you’re worthless if you go to prison. We try so hard to keep people from reintegrating into the real world, it’s no wonder our recidivism rate is so high.
i applied for employment in a casino in the past, part of the application asked for familial references.
application denied, due to criminal contacts- as in they investigated my familial references and found an extended family member with unsavoury past.
summary- no hire due to the conduct of a person other than yourself
application denied, due to criminal contacts- as in they investigated my familial references and found an extended family member with unsavoury past.
summary- no hire due to the conduct of a person other than yourself
It shouldn't be, but it appears to be almost a core value in some cultures.
Its is for industries that require trust and for company directors.
Ask an Australian.
He is not wanted by interpol as he was arrested in 2014 and has served his time in Swedish prison. He was asked if he was convicted of fraud which he was not.
Did you read the whole article?
>“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”
Note the use of "was" here.
> I got some sort of semi-excuse regarding their claim that I lied on my application. They also said that they agreed it wasn’t fraud or similar really. So both of the points they made regarding the denial were not really the reason,” Sunde clarifies.
This sounds different from "concealing criminal history".
>“Not only that, but they’re also upset I was wanted by Interpol.”
Note the use of "was" here.
> I got some sort of semi-excuse regarding their claim that I lied on my application. They also said that they agreed it wasn’t fraud or similar really. So both of the points they made regarding the denial were not really the reason,” Sunde clarifies.
This sounds different from "concealing criminal history".
Guilty until proven innocent, you mean?
Technically you're not a criminal until convicted, only suspected. Likewise, you're not a criminal if you've served your time. The US culture of "ex cons" is shameful.
Technically you're not a criminal until convicted, only suspected. Likewise, you're not a criminal if you've served your time. The US culture of "ex cons" is shameful.
This culture is not just the US. But sure they probably love to "deplatform" people from ever having decent life again and keep them into that slave low pay factory.
Turkey goes to a further extreme. You cannot even call a criminal a criminal after it has served the punishment.
OT: I really hate seeing this in threads. Perhaps HN would be better served by a "disavow" function that would remove the username from the post? A person could edit out any potentially identifying information and disavow the post, leaving the content for context.
I don’t see the problem. He has shown over many years that he isn’t someone to be trusted with this type of accreditation. His past convictions aside, he has shown that breaking the rules is his normalcy. He is still active with many members that still coordinate with illegal activities. Yes ICANN has too much power, but I understand and respect their rejecting Sunde.
> He has shown over many years that he isn’t someone to be trusted with this type of accreditation. His past convictions aside, he has shown that breaking the rules is his normalcy.
Is the URL bar lying to me? Am I actually on Bootlicker News, where hackers are not to be trusted, overly-powerful and unaccountable institutions get "understand[ing] and respect", and rulebreaking is grounds for excommunication?
You don't see the problem because you are the problem.
Is the URL bar lying to me? Am I actually on Bootlicker News, where hackers are not to be trusted, overly-powerful and unaccountable institutions get "understand[ing] and respect", and rulebreaking is grounds for excommunication?
You don't see the problem because you are the problem.
I accept my inevitable gray punishment for negative meta discussion but it's worth stating, HN is overwhelmingly corporatist and authoritarian these days.
Somewhat orthogonal to this discussion, but I'm so glad Urbit is gaining steam every day.
The internet founded by the crazy far-right dude that believes in the Dark Enlightenment? I’ll pass.
[deleted]
I’m not going to support anyone that makes a profit breaking the rules, gets caught, says sorry not sorry, continues to profit off breaking the rules in the name of privacy and free internet, and then cries that they’re no longer trusted to break the rules.
> I’m not going to support anyone that makes a profit breaking the rules, gets caught, says sorry not sorry, continues to profit off breaking the rules
So no Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc?
So no Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc?
I agree with the idea that ICANN seems to be in a reasonable way. They are based on the idea of control over companies/groups that MUST work by an agreed upon set of rules if the system is to work. Peter has proven over the years that he is comfortable breaking whatever rules he decides to. Choosing not to work with someone with that mindset seems reasonable for ICANN.
However, I do think they should come out with a clear, public statement of why those chose not to work with him.
On a tangent... I am really uncomfortable with the fact that your comment was downvoted (enough to be noticeable). I get that people may disagree with the opinion you are expressing with it, but I was under the impression that downvotes on HN are supposed to be for comments that are off topic / do not move the conversation forward / inappropriate / etc. Your comment very clearly does not fall afoul of those rules; it's an opinion to be discussed.
However, I do think they should come out with a clear, public statement of why those chose not to work with him.
On a tangent... I am really uncomfortable with the fact that your comment was downvoted (enough to be noticeable). I get that people may disagree with the opinion you are expressing with it, but I was under the impression that downvotes on HN are supposed to be for comments that are off topic / do not move the conversation forward / inappropriate / etc. Your comment very clearly does not fall afoul of those rules; it's an opinion to be discussed.
Im not a hacker of networks, but I had to learn how stuff words when I had a pirate bay chatroom manager go to reddit and other places and do as much slandering as he/she could.
I still dont know what he /she did that against me?
Im even politically kinda on their side. So it baffled and still baffles me why so much personal hate against me. I now discover that entire internet relay chat, and hacktivist cultures online, are blindly on pirate bay side, because they dont use their own judgements as independent humans (independent of the need to have a leader or a superstar to follow...). Its sad that intelligent people cannot keep a neutral ground for themselves and even judge their own friends from a neutral perpective. I have been severely harassed by a pirate bay admin and still I dont hate the pirate bay, I try to investigate what made the manager of the pirate bay today harass me with such devotion. But then I see that people who follow the pirate bay mindsets and politics aren't exactly free thinking individuals. They come from the extreme-leftist political area where violence is JUSTIFIED always if its used against ''the enemies''. And im their enemy apparently. Im not even a fuc...cen journo lady.Im a NOBODY.
How is not being able to be a domain registrar deplatforming?
Just be your own registrar....... oh.
How is it not deplatforming when you campaign to get registrars to deplatform people and then also say they can't be a registrar themselves
> Over the phone, ICANN explained that the matter was discussed internally. This unnamed group of people concluded that the organization is ‘not comfortable’ doing business with him.
It's the height of arrogance that they didn't even feel the need to come up with any better excuse, just this. And of course:
> ICANN will also keep the registration fee
It's the height of arrogance that they didn't even feel the need to come up with any better excuse, just this. And of course:
> ICANN will also keep the registration fee
Well, be careful. This is according to Sunde. We don’t know what they said or for that matter, if IVANN even called him.
ICANN were asked to comment on the story but chose not to do so. If they have anything to say, they are free to issue a statement anytime. Meanwhile, what we know so far, together with their lack of response, should be more than enough to have an opinion about the whole situation.
You can form your opinion based on anything you want...
But if you do it based on an unsubstantiated semi-incoherent one-sided account, I think we can safely say you don't care about the truth of the matter.
But if you do it based on an unsubstantiated semi-incoherent one-sided account, I think we can safely say you don't care about the truth of the matter.
But if you do it based on an unsubstantiated semi-incoherent one-sided account, I think we can safely say you don't care about the truth of the matter.
So, people or groups are immune from criticism as long as they refuse to speak on the issue? I guess that's one stance to take.
So, people or groups are immune from criticism as long as they refuse to speak on the issue? I guess that's one stance to take.
Could you back up "semi incoherent"? His story reads perfectly reasonable to me.
No response is a response.
Even without the particularly damming phone call, the ICANN looks fairly terrible in this exchange.
Again, particularly damning according to one person.
ICANN't is a corrupt scam, and everyone who follows Internet issues knows it.
They're continually coming up with new rip-offs to get people or organizations to apply for and then keep the astronomical fee after rejecting the application. Registrars, TLD owners...
Oh yeah, the "unlimited" TLD scam was one of the most offensive. They made it look like they were finally going to do the right thing and get rid of canned TLDs... but nope.
ICANN should be abolished. What should replace it? I don't know.
They're continually coming up with new rip-offs to get people or organizations to apply for and then keep the astronomical fee after rejecting the application. Registrars, TLD owners...
Oh yeah, the "unlimited" TLD scam was one of the most offensive. They made it look like they were finally going to do the right thing and get rid of canned TLDs... but nope.
ICANN should be abolished. What should replace it? I don't know.
Although interesting, this is overshadowed by the growing politicisation of the internet.
ICANN seems to have a representative multi-government structure that is robust against any particular government having unreasonable influence. If a few Sundes get crushed in the gears so be it.
The US tech giants are beholden to themselves and control a scary fraction of the internet's infrastructure. They are starting to flex their muscles in regard to what should and should not appear on the internet. As far as political threats go, that is where they will materialise. Or in governments copying China's strategy for engaging with technology.
ICANN seems to have a representative multi-government structure that is robust against any particular government having unreasonable influence. If a few Sundes get crushed in the gears so be it.
The US tech giants are beholden to themselves and control a scary fraction of the internet's infrastructure. They are starting to flex their muscles in regard to what should and should not appear on the internet. As far as political threats go, that is where they will materialise. Or in governments copying China's strategy for engaging with technology.
Just because some other internet giant is screwing free speech harder doesn't make this any less wrong.
Battles can be fought on multiple fronts if necessary.
This isn't the first corruption coming from ICANN.
Battles can be fought on multiple fronts if necessary.
This isn't the first corruption coming from ICANN.
it's not FREE SPEECH, it's FREE POLITICAL SPEECH which is in fact an oxymoron as that cannot ever exist in an efficient society even if we want it to
The US first amendment protects all speech, not just political speech. Most particularly it protects offensive speech because that is the only kind that needs protecting. We endure many inefficiencies for the freedoms we allow, the idea is that those freedoms are worth the cost.
The US first amendment protects (almost) all speech, but only from prosecution by the government, not by companies.
Indeed, if the drafters had forseen corporatism many things might have been different. And then there is the organized persecution of peers for their horribly offensive (read differing) opinions that is allowed by our modern communication tools. Is freedom of speech freedom to persecute? Maybe having really bad ideas should become a protected class? I say that only half jokingly, I have no answers.
The drafters didn't foresee protected classes (in the legal sense you're using the term, if I understand correctly); in fact, several of those protected classes simply weren't granted the rights granted to white male landowners by the Constitution the drafters framed.
I don't know how much guidance we can take from the original drafters on the novel problems of the modern era.
I don't know how much guidance we can take from the original drafters on the novel problems of the modern era.
Good question. And there is also the freedom of (dis)association.
Yes, and this really highlight the problem with ICANN: it's de-facto (global) government, except legally it isn't.
At what point do we stop calling a company a small profit-taking endeavor and start calling them a government in everything but name? When they have a monopoly over national communication infrastructure? When they control a small city complete with infrastructure just to service a Florida theme park? How about when they overthrow foreign governments to grow bananas easier?
Well some companies are starting to look more and more like the government. Besides corporations are protected by the government from certain things. The populace should be protected from their actions as well. Existence of big corporation always affects life of many people so it is only fair that those corps should be restricted in what their can do.
For one thing those corps main duty is to make money. If they engage in morality setting instead they should have their business license revoked.
For one thing those corps main duty is to make money. If they engage in morality setting instead they should have their business license revoked.
So we don't have rights, but privileges.
Corruption from ICANN is 100x worse than big tech. ICANN can just tell DNS servers not to route anything to do with you and threaten others to do the same.
The strategy is different, and clear though. First monopolize contents, then censor. It seemed impossible to do in the web when it bloomed. Compared with tv, it was a difficult beast to tame. But free resources, convenience and having all your contacts captive work as a charm.
Why do you believe ICANN’s multi-government structure is somehow robust against any one government or small consortium of governments having too much power?
cough Is this the same ICANT that we all know and love :-)
Sorry forgot the <sarcasm> tag
[deleted]
ICANN corruption is wel-known at this point after the .org fiasco. A lot of DNS industry folks are now giving decentralized DNS alternatives more attention. I wonder if we’re reaching a tipping point — it’s not unimaginable to me that in 10 years ICANN’s influence over DNS is significantly reduced as decentralized alternatives take over
https://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualif...
I doubt that every individual connected to these organizations have a spot free reputation, so ICANN is really putting themselves in a weird position by singling out Sunde.
I doubt that every individual connected to these organizations have a spot free reputation, so ICANN is really putting themselves in a weird position by singling out Sunde.
I suspect not many of those other registrars are run by people able to use the line "they were also unhappy I was wanted by Interpol"...
It's weird to hold that against someone though. Interpol is not judiciary. It's not even proper part of any executive.
Guilty untill proven innocent?
No, guilty as found by a court that handed him an eight month jail sentence. Even if you think that was unfair and his Pirate Bay enterprise was generally a good thing for content discovery, it's unsurprising that an organisation for the administration of intellectual property doesn't consider an enterprise run by someone with a conviction for criminal copyright infringement suitable for its partner list.
But it was 15+ years ago. I guess they don't believe in rehabilitation... Can US companies discriminate on the basis of such ancient history?
My [censored, someone close to me] can't even get a passport because of something that happened when he was 20. He's more than twice that age now.
The US (from what I hear) in particular seems to be atrocious at rehabilitation.
Had he ever claimed to be rehabilitated?
He's an active member of a political party named after his criminal enterprise.
You may think he's morally right, but he broke the law and as far as I know never repented his choice.
He's an active member of a political party named after his criminal enterprise.
You may think he's morally right, but he broke the law and as far as I know never repented his choice.
The political party is actually legitimate, is in power in Prague (they run the city) and is an indication that he is now acting legally. So yes.
So, what's the point of punishment if you can't be rehabilitated anyway ? Why bother deciding on the exact perimeter of a sentence if the only thing that will matter is a boolean ?
Believe it or not, the criteria for an entity to trust someone enough to grant them the privilege of accrediting them as a domain registrar can be somewhat different from the criteria the state uses to decide whether it is cruel and unusual not to release them from prison. The fact some people can be rehabilitated, doesn't mean that they always are, or that keeping people in jail indefinitely because they haven't said sorry is a proportional punishment/deterrent. The social consensus you're arguing against is that the range of attitudes towards people convicted of crimes shouldn't be as simple as a boolean updating from INCARCERATE to MAXIMUM TRUST on the date they say sorry.
Criteria used by the state are examined by an impartial judge, publically, and must be proven beyong reasonable doubt.
Criteria used by ICANN are unaccountable, capricious and prone to abuse of power
The argument is about due process.
Criteria used by ICANN are unaccountable, capricious and prone to abuse of power
The argument is about due process.
The problem is not their opinion, its their inordinate extrajudicial power to extend punishment indefinitely upon people which have already paid their debt to society, at the behest of corporations.
Sure, if you consider "concluding someone convicted by due process of offence against IP who continues to ridicule the concept of IP unsuitable for accreditation to administer IP" to be 'indefinite punishment' which seems more than a little hyperbolic.
For related reasons, if you're convicted of creating malware and continue to loudly and publicly defend the principle of creating malware after your release, it's not cruel and unusual punishment if tech companies won't give partner certifications to your software consultancy
For related reasons, if you're convicted of creating malware and continue to loudly and publicly defend the principle of creating malware after your release, it's not cruel and unusual punishment if tech companies won't give partner certifications to your software consultancy
[deleted]
The US doesn't do "rehabilitation", they only do punishment, and it's ad infinitum.
They do rehabilitation but only as a side effect of imprisonment, not intentionally.
Yes, yes they can. Felons are second-class citizens in the US.
He denies that assumption in the Twitter thread
Direct link to a Twitter thread from him: https://twitter.com/brokep/status/1364950213790740481
Most contentful/relevant tweets I think:
> After the first final review of our application, ICANN made a background check of everyone involved in the application (we're a team). My first contacts with ICANN I've been very open with who I am - I mentioned they should google me. My background is.. let's say different. [...]
> After the background check I get a reply that I've "checked the wrong boxes" on parts of the application. There's some boxes saying: (paraphrasing) "have anyone in the team being convicted of fraud or similar in the past 10 years".
> Noone in the team has been convicted of that. Nor murder, manslaughter, theft, breaking & entering, or anything else. I was involved in a case of aiding with copyright infringement from 2005-2006. That's 15+ years ago. And not fraud or similar. [...]
> However, @ICANN is of another opinion. After spending over half a year to review the application (with a bi-weekly email stating that the delay is normal, nothing to be concerned about), they decided to deny the application since "the wrong box was ticked".
What the heck: "You convicted for fraud in the past 10 years?" "Nope." "You liar, you were convicted in 2006!"
Someone needs to tell the ICANN what year it is.
Also, they didn't notice before? Not like internet people should have never heard of his name.
To be honest, the next thing he writes (being actively wanted by interpol) does sound a bit fishy, I can see why that would make a bureaucrat on the other end of the line a bit less happy to comply. Imagine someone calls up your org and you find she (or he) is wanted in multiple countries, well, I can sort of see the point there, regardless of whether it's just in this particular case.
(First tweet starting at https://twitter.com/brokep/status/1364950233382273031 )
> After the first final review of our application, ICANN made a background check of everyone involved in the application (we're a team). My first contacts with ICANN I've been very open with who I am - I mentioned they should google me. My background is.. let's say different. [...]
> After the background check I get a reply that I've "checked the wrong boxes" on parts of the application. There's some boxes saying: (paraphrasing) "have anyone in the team being convicted of fraud or similar in the past 10 years".
> Noone in the team has been convicted of that. Nor murder, manslaughter, theft, breaking & entering, or anything else. I was involved in a case of aiding with copyright infringement from 2005-2006. That's 15+ years ago. And not fraud or similar. [...]
> However, @ICANN is of another opinion. After spending over half a year to review the application (with a bi-weekly email stating that the delay is normal, nothing to be concerned about), they decided to deny the application since "the wrong box was ticked".
What the heck: "You convicted for fraud in the past 10 years?" "Nope." "You liar, you were convicted in 2006!"
Someone needs to tell the ICANN what year it is.
Also, they didn't notice before? Not like internet people should have never heard of his name.
To be honest, the next thing he writes (being actively wanted by interpol) does sound a bit fishy, I can see why that would make a bureaucrat on the other end of the line a bit less happy to comply. Imagine someone calls up your org and you find she (or he) is wanted in multiple countries, well, I can sort of see the point there, regardless of whether it's just in this particular case.
(First tweet starting at https://twitter.com/brokep/status/1364950233382273031 )
> What the heck: "You convicted for fraud in the past 10 years?" "Nope." "You liar, you were convicted in 2006!"
Also, they seemed to agree that it wasn't fraud or similar.
Also also, Sunde isn't wanted by Interpol nor was he during the application process. He was wanted in 2012, prior to his prison stint.
Also, they seemed to agree that it wasn't fraud or similar.
Also also, Sunde isn't wanted by Interpol nor was he during the application process. He was wanted in 2012, prior to his prison stint.
Ah, then I misunderstood that tweet of his about interpol.
> Also, they didn't notice before? Not like internet people should have never heard of his name.
One of the craziest things about the internet to me is that everyone treats their experience of “the internet” as THE experience of “THE internet” like it’s one singular conception that we all enjoy. But, the internet is huge and diverse and full of distinct niches such that no two “internets” (as conceived of as an individual’s experience of it) are almost ever close to the same. The idea that surely the good people at ICANN would know this guy (I certainly didn’t) is so striking to me as derivative of this.
One of the craziest things about the internet to me is that everyone treats their experience of “the internet” as THE experience of “THE internet” like it’s one singular conception that we all enjoy. But, the internet is huge and diverse and full of distinct niches such that no two “internets” (as conceived of as an individual’s experience of it) are almost ever close to the same. The idea that surely the good people at ICANN would know this guy (I certainly didn’t) is so striking to me as derivative of this.
I notice this a lot, e.g. I have no idea what Internet the people in India are seeing because I barely ever seem to meet them online. But this is an American organisation, you can't tell me The Pirate Bay is something unknown there. The lawsuits against it were equally big news there, from what I gathered. Someone might still have missed it, and I'm sure my mom will have, but then my mom doesn't work for one of the Internet's core infrastructure organisations and doesn't handle applications where you need to check for fraud on the Internet.
I’m American and know of TPB, doesn’t mean I know who its founders are! The lawsuits were never particularly big news in my experience. I honestly don’t even specifically know what or when TPB was in active legal hot water nor do I have any idea on outcome. I have a vague idea that it probably happened at some point but only because I know that TPB enabled piracy. I remember more specifically individuals getting in trouble for using TPB than anyone creating TPB getting in trouble.
I’ve also heard of Pinterest for example but barely know the product and definitely don’t know the founders.
What’s more, you’re committing the same perspective but just at a slightly different scale. What I said originally about fractured internet experiences is also totally true if you restrict to American users! Plenty of American users of the internet are highly frequently so but don’t pirate, for example!
I’ve also heard of Pinterest for example but barely know the product and definitely don’t know the founders.
What’s more, you’re committing the same perspective but just at a slightly different scale. What I said originally about fractured internet experiences is also totally true if you restrict to American users! Plenty of American users of the internet are highly frequently so but don’t pirate, for example!
If that's something that interests you, there's TPB AFK, a free documentary about the legal issues you can watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOKXCEwo_8
Thanks!
You're saying web search is a niche product that ICANN investigators are unlikely to know how to use when evaluating a candidate?
He's not famous for hamster dance. He's famous for a multi year battle over over the legal structure of the Internet, which is ICANN's wheelhouse.
He's not famous for hamster dance. He's famous for a multi year battle over over the legal structure of the Internet, which is ICANN's wheelhouse.
That’s quite the straw man. Like, I didn’t even mention anything about web search so that’s a really quite the attempt at reconfiguring my argument into something comical to mock. What’s more, the story is pretty explicit that they did look into the guys background and discovered his past, probably via web search. I was talking about the assumption that the people at ICANN should have known this “famous” person before that.
The raid on TPB was in 2006. The conviction was in 2009, the sentencing in 2010, and the sentence was served in 2014. Depending on when, exactly, in 2019 the application was submitted, it may have been just inside 10 years since the conviction.
That's not to get into whether the application should have been denied or blah blah blah, just want to throw out that shifting from when the conviction was to when the raid happened is somewhat disingenuous.
That's not to get into whether the application should have been denied or blah blah blah, just want to throw out that shifting from when the conviction was to when the raid happened is somewhat disingenuous.
> I asked quite a few times very pragmatic questions: When am I allowed to be a member? Their answer: Can't say. So what's the problem with me being a member? Their answer: I could break the agreement!
> Many of the people working at ICANN are lawyers. ICANN is a very IP heavy organisation (domains are trademark territory) which means a lot of people has previously worked in other IP organisations such as movie and music studios. They're all located in Los Angeles, a small world.
> Many of the people working at ICANN are lawyers. ICANN is a very IP heavy organisation (domains are trademark territory) which means a lot of people has previously worked in other IP organisations such as movie and music studios. They're all located in Los Angeles, a small world.
And a shorter update thread: https://nitter.dark.fail/i/status/1366522131811627009
This is more and more like China's social credit system.
The main difference to me seems that some in the West are vehemently denying anything is even happening.
'There is no cancel culture. You are just being held accountable. People just don't like you. You have no right to social media. Make your own app/cloud/host..'
'There is no cancel culture. You are just being held accountable. People just don't like you. You have no right to social media. Make your own app/cloud/host..'
every social system has the concept of people that are not the right sort, and that are just not allowed to be part of the prestigious organizations because of some issue.
The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power.
This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.
The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power.
This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.
The issue isn’t that there is a system for social accountability but that the system is a black box.
Accountability must be open.
Accountability must be open.
Also, most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group, etc.
Comparing that organic system of social appraisal with anything like a mass scale surveillance social credit system, or international communications censoring organization like ICANN, is deeply unreasonable. It is clearly not the same thing, and centralized control of reputation by a government arguably poses huge totalitarian risks with zero offsetting benefits for citizens.
Comparing that organic system of social appraisal with anything like a mass scale surveillance social credit system, or international communications censoring organization like ICANN, is deeply unreasonable. It is clearly not the same thing, and centralized control of reputation by a government arguably poses huge totalitarian risks with zero offsetting benefits for citizens.
>> most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group
I don't see how size or organicity are useful factors to appraise actions by certain institutions as "unreasonable". If you have ever read the Scarlet Letter or the Crucible, those "smaller" centralized institutions (i.e. families, towns, schools, etc.) have played the part of censorious zealot just as much as the bigger ones.
I don't see how size or organicity are useful factors to appraise actions by certain institutions as "unreasonable". If you have ever read the Scarlet Letter or the Crucible, those "smaller" centralized institutions (i.e. families, towns, schools, etc.) have played the part of censorious zealot just as much as the bigger ones.
What do you mean “more and more”? Are there other examples of this from ICANN?
There's this one but one cared because he was a nazi. Now they're going against pirates. Who knows who's next.
https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...
https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...
This reminds me of that famous poem.
"First they came for the nazis, and I defended them because I am a staunch supporter of free speech.
Then the nazis exterminated me and my entire family, just like they had always promised they would.
The end."
"First they came for the nazis, and I defended them because I am a staunch supporter of free speech.
Then the nazis exterminated me and my entire family, just like they had always promised they would.
The end."
Yes, these witches will definitely kill us all, so we must immediately burn them without any due process. Don't worry, this is definitely a one-off exception; we would certainly never extend the same claim to any other group or claim that someone is a witch with no actual evidence. We will totally provide you and people you care about with a fair trial when the mob comes for you.
Really?
Really?
Systems must provide due process, but if you let yourself be slippery sloped into spending time and energy to support your own extermination (e.g. by doing business with nazis) that's really something.
I much prefer to have nazis out in the open where we can keep an eye on them than forcing them underground.
Although I sympathise with that view too, it's unclear to me whether this tactic actually works against the feared outcome, which is Nazis gaining political power. Let's say we do keep an eye on them, and we see something we really don't like. What do we do then? Just keep on keeping an eye on them?
It's also unclear what 'underground' means here. Most communication (and particularly political organizing) happens over the Internet, and people regularly gain access to ideologically-bent forums. Was Parler 'underground'? Is a closed Facebook group 'underground'? At first glance, it seems that such groups being 'underground' is actually what we want to happen. More caution to conceal their activities and spread of information would limit the number of people getting into such a movement.
If the ideas are out in the open, we have to accept that there will be points at which rhetoric wins out over 'ideas', and that even if the marketplace of ideas produces correct results in the long run, we're still left dealing with incorrect results in the short run. Maybe that's a reasonable judgement for a libertarian point of view, but it's equally reasonable and understandable that someone may not want to make that concession at all.
It's also unclear what 'underground' means here. Most communication (and particularly political organizing) happens over the Internet, and people regularly gain access to ideologically-bent forums. Was Parler 'underground'? Is a closed Facebook group 'underground'? At first glance, it seems that such groups being 'underground' is actually what we want to happen. More caution to conceal their activities and spread of information would limit the number of people getting into such a movement.
If the ideas are out in the open, we have to accept that there will be points at which rhetoric wins out over 'ideas', and that even if the marketplace of ideas produces correct results in the long run, we're still left dealing with incorrect results in the short run. Maybe that's a reasonable judgement for a libertarian point of view, but it's equally reasonable and understandable that someone may not want to make that concession at all.
We had a lot of Nazis right out in the open here in the US in the 1930's. And I don't mean what they call "Nazis" today, I mean 100% legit Nazis. And a lot of them. This idea that if Nazi's are allowed to spread their message openly they will inevitably take over is nonsense and propaganda to get people to support censorship.
I'm sorry, your position is actually "we had nazis in the 1930s and that didn't result in any serious problems"?
> This idea that if Nazi's are allowed to spread their message openly they will inevitably take over
This isn't the claim; the claim is more moderate: Nazis gaining political power, and not necessarily inevitably doing so. Nazis are only an example here; you can substitute any 'wrong' idea to see the analogies, from climate change denial to anti-vaxx to flat earth theories. Further, political power is only the end goal. I think most people would agree that a society where a large percentage of the population consists of (Nazis/anti-vaxxers/climate deniers) who don't vote in themselves would have negative discursive effects socially or politically on those who do vote. The state has power, but it does not have absolute power, and that's a good thing.
This isn't the claim; the claim is more moderate: Nazis gaining political power, and not necessarily inevitably doing so. Nazis are only an example here; you can substitute any 'wrong' idea to see the analogies, from climate change denial to anti-vaxx to flat earth theories. Further, political power is only the end goal. I think most people would agree that a society where a large percentage of the population consists of (Nazis/anti-vaxxers/climate deniers) who don't vote in themselves would have negative discursive effects socially or politically on those who do vote. The state has power, but it does not have absolute power, and that's a good thing.
Yes but I would say censorship has a greater negative effect. I would be willing to support censorship if it was guaranteed to prevent an inevitable nazi takeover. I do not support censorship against "negative discursive effects."
That's understandable, so we're back to the point I made at the end of my original comment, which is that while we may accept that the best ideas do not triumph in the short run, it's reasonable to think the cost is worth bearing, and it's also reasonable to think the cost isn't worth bearing. I think there are convincing arguments to be made from both points of view. I think it's also worth bringing other democratic ideals into the picture, such as democratic equality, and questioning why (or why not) freedom of speech should always be selected over those other ideals.
For many, some more balancing between the ideals of speech autonomy and democratic equality is strongly justified - see some regulation in Europe for example.
For many, some more balancing between the ideals of speech autonomy and democratic equality is strongly justified - see some regulation in Europe for example.
Free speech and democratic equality go together. Censorship means that there is a select group of powerful people that get to decide what ideas are allowed.
They can go together, but they can also conflict. There's lots of argumentation on how hate speech and pornography can undermine democratic equality for minority groups and women respectively. See the SEP article on freedom of speech[0].
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#DemCitPor
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#DemCitPor
Both hate speech laws and groups like Antifa were present and used against NSDAP in the Weimar Germany. What is clear is that tactics like censoring them do not work. You cannot just beat ideas out of peoples' heads, whether it's nazis, BLM, communists or whoever really. This as well has been tried countless times throughout the history and it never did any good.
Yep. Hitler himself talked about this:
> “And so, I established in 1919 a programme and tendency that was a conscious slap in the face of the democratic-pacifist world. [We knew] it might take five or ten or twenty years, yet gradually an authoritarian state arose within the democratic state, and a nucleus of fanatical devotion and ruthless determination formed in a wretched world that lacked basic convictions.
> Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.
> Neither was done. The times were such that our adversaries were no longer capable of accomplishing our annihilation, nor did they have the nerve. Arguably, they furthermore lacked the understanding to assume a wholly appropriate attitude. Instead, they began to tyrannise our young movement by bourgeois means, and, by doing so, they assisted the process of natural selection in a very fortunate manner. From there on, it was only a question of time until the leadership of the nation would fall to our hardened human material.
> “And so, I established in 1919 a programme and tendency that was a conscious slap in the face of the democratic-pacifist world. [We knew] it might take five or ten or twenty years, yet gradually an authoritarian state arose within the democratic state, and a nucleus of fanatical devotion and ruthless determination formed in a wretched world that lacked basic convictions.
> Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.
> Neither was done. The times were such that our adversaries were no longer capable of accomplishing our annihilation, nor did they have the nerve. Arguably, they furthermore lacked the understanding to assume a wholly appropriate attitude. Instead, they began to tyrannise our young movement by bourgeois means, and, by doing so, they assisted the process of natural selection in a very fortunate manner. From there on, it was only a question of time until the leadership of the nation would fall to our hardened human material.
>You cannot just beat ideas out of peoples' heads, whether it's nazis, BLM, communists or whoever really.
This isn't the goal of such laws; the goal is to hobble the spread and reach of those ideas, not to change individual peoples' minds. It's forward-looking, not present-looking. It is also a show of the state's policy towards a particular ideology, and it carries the state's discursive authority with it. In a similar way, the point of laws against child pornography isn't to change the mind of the child pornographer, it's to slow and aim to stop the spread of the material, while attaching the state's authority to the idea that child abuse and its recording and distribution is wrong.
As a counterexample, it's documented that segregation laws had two effects; the first is keeping blacks and whites separate, the second is the authority of the law, as crafted by the sovereign body of the country, enshrined the inferiority of blacks, which reflected in the attitudes of whites and the psychology of blacks at the time. Something being legally enshrined has a very similar effect to how taxes discourage the goods they are levied on in the marketplace.
This isn't the goal of such laws; the goal is to hobble the spread and reach of those ideas, not to change individual peoples' minds. It's forward-looking, not present-looking. It is also a show of the state's policy towards a particular ideology, and it carries the state's discursive authority with it. In a similar way, the point of laws against child pornography isn't to change the mind of the child pornographer, it's to slow and aim to stop the spread of the material, while attaching the state's authority to the idea that child abuse and its recording and distribution is wrong.
As a counterexample, it's documented that segregation laws had two effects; the first is keeping blacks and whites separate, the second is the authority of the law, as crafted by the sovereign body of the country, enshrined the inferiority of blacks, which reflected in the attitudes of whites and the psychology of blacks at the time. Something being legally enshrined has a very similar effect to how taxes discourage the goods they are levied on in the marketplace.
There were times when if you said something critical about the establishment, you were simply disappeared, never to be seen again. And it still didn't stop the ideas from spreading, it only gained you sympathy from the population and converted more people to your side. You can say that the goal is this or that, but it doesn't change the fact that 64% of Republicans said that they are extremely/very concerned about the censorship[1]. Which sort of confirms what I am saying, people will be more sympathetic to you if you got censored. If you're a serious political activist, I'd expect you to perceive the censorship not as a disaster, but just another opportunity to further your political goals. Which doesn't mean that it's dishonest, censorship is bullshit and they're right to feel that way, but politics is still politics.
1) https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/13646149211163443...
1) https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/13646149211163443...
I also like this, because it forces us to know what is going to hit us in the future (terrorist attacks?(
Like we want to know who is planning to blow up someo building. Why wouldnt we want to know?
But the pirate bay co-founder Anakata says in this interview below that he defends the rights of pedos to have a website about their views (i think he clarifies at he doesnt allow pedo material but only a webiste about their "political" views), and that he is fighting for that right. To have their views in the open. So my question is, do you "progre" also agree with Anakata that aside Neonazis the Pedo politicians should also have their say in public view? And if you believe yes they should, can you elaborate why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOyhQvFmVo&
Like we want to know who is planning to blow up someo building. Why wouldnt we want to know?
But the pirate bay co-founder Anakata says in this interview below that he defends the rights of pedos to have a website about their views (i think he clarifies at he doesnt allow pedo material but only a webiste about their "political" views), and that he is fighting for that right. To have their views in the open. So my question is, do you "progre" also agree with Anakata that aside Neonazis the Pedo politicians should also have their say in public view? And if you believe yes they should, can you elaborate why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOyhQvFmVo&
[deleted]
Just because someone is a Nazi doesn't mean they can be robbed or beaten at will. Due process is necessary for justice.
The status quo is that it is illegal to rob Nazis, but legal to choose not to provide DDoS protection for them. It's the second bit people are objecting to here...
I would love for them to sue Cloudflare and bring up the fact that Cloudflare is knowly hosting illegal ddos-for-hire services which forces people to buy DDOS protection.....
But the argument is about due process: are we actually sure that an Bob is a a Nazi, or did him neighbour create a fake twitter account to impersonate him? Is it his namesake that he never met?
What if Steve is Bob's conpetitor and conveniently accused Bob of being a Nazi?
Suppose Bob is a nazi but hasn't commited any crimes, how far can we go, what else can we deny, can we refuse them a website? A mobile phone connection? electricity and running water? School for his child?
What if Steve is Bob's conpetitor and conveniently accused Bob of being a Nazi?
Suppose Bob is a nazi but hasn't commited any crimes, how far can we go, what else can we deny, can we refuse them a website? A mobile phone connection? electricity and running water? School for his child?
Not just ICANN, but like deplatformings for off-platform activities, for example.
I guess every public internet policy should now include a clause such as "We reserve the right to not do any business with you if we don't like you, regardless of any other provision of the policy".
At least, it will be honest.
PS. Variations may include: "...if we don't like you OR we don't like anyone you like...".
At least, it will be honest.
PS. Variations may include: "...if we don't like you OR we don't like anyone you like...".
That's already in most policies without qualifying it's because they don't like you.
Here's an example:
> We also reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Service at any time (including, without limitation, by limiting or discontinuing certain features of the Service) without notice to you. We will have no liability whatsoever on account of any change to the Service or any suspension or termination of your access to or use of the Service
The right is reserved, no need to give any reason.
Here's an example:
> We also reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Service at any time (including, without limitation, by limiting or discontinuing certain features of the Service) without notice to you. We will have no liability whatsoever on account of any change to the Service or any suspension or termination of your access to or use of the Service
The right is reserved, no need to give any reason.
Why do the pirate bay founders get treated like pariah while other "business men" like the people in Kazaa - like for example Zennström and Friis who went on to create Skype - are treated like everyone else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa#History
They are a private organization and have a right to choose who to do business with. /s
That's funny given all the scammers they have accredited, ie. when your domain expires and goes under "infinite lock" because 2 registars lock it for as long as they can and then transfer it to the other.
This was my reaction. They've let cybersquatters go nuts ruining the domain registration system for years. UDRP is fine for big businesses but what about everyone else? Why do they allow companies to run bots on the dictionary and register thousands of names at wholesale rates that go years without an active site?
I spoke with Vint Cerf when he was the head of ICANN about GoDaddy's abusive policies that blocked customers from transferring domains, they went years without doing anything about that as well.
Peter Sunde is not the problem.
I spoke with Vint Cerf when he was the head of ICANN about GoDaddy's abusive policies that blocked customers from transferring domains, they went years without doing anything about that as well.
Peter Sunde is not the problem.
And don't get me started on the willingness of registrars to look the other way and pocket the cash when spammers register "word salad" domain names by the bajillion for their snowshoe[0] spam operations.
[0] https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary#233
[0] https://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Glossary#233
I really doubt it has anything to do with thepiratebay, instead it's very likely due to his current project njal.la that provides anonymous domain names.
Would anyone be surprised if a defence of "why worry? Just make your own non-profit global corporation to control IP address space allocation" is being expressed amongst some here? Or would that be a bit of a stretch?
Probably worth noting that several people are, in fact, suggesting distributed DNS as the solution here.
Whether a rival private corporation or a distributed federation, competition is the only option if one doesn't trust a government to take the responsibility over.
Whether a rival private corporation or a distributed federation, competition is the only option if one doesn't trust a government to take the responsibility over.
The EU needs to control - preferably democratically - its own part of the internet.
That, and end users need to control - preferably democratically - all of it.
Disturbing perhaps, but not surprising.
And, given the arrival of ENS, IPFS, etc., probably not of any enormous consequence either.
Centralized services in the vein of ICANN are clearly on the way out.
And, given the arrival of ENS, IPFS, etc., probably not of any enormous consequence either.
Centralized services in the vein of ICANN are clearly on the way out.
Open question for HN: When evaluating how much to trust a person in a business relationship, when is it wise it to consider
A. The person's past actions
B. The intent behind those actions
C. What they say now about those past actions
?
A. The person's past actions
B. The intent behind those actions
C. What they say now about those past actions
?
When you're a private enterprise you're free to do as you wish. When you control basic necessary infrastructure, you need to set and abide by any limits based on such things.
Not normally there is the "fit and proper persons" test for company directors.
The question is asking when is it wise to (privately) do any of those particular actions.
Which I find an odd topic of inquiry in this thread.
It’s bizarre anyone could have a reason to find that odd, since there could scarcely be any topic more directly and irrefutably related to this thread (regardless of one’s take on whether ICANN acted inappropriately).
You’re essentially saying, “I have a different system of logic from the common one, and I want my system of logic to be considered the right one. So I’ll just treat it as ‘irrelevant’ as a baseless gainsaying rebuttal to anyone else’s line of thinking.” How very whiny.
You’re essentially saying, “I have a different system of logic from the common one, and I want my system of logic to be considered the right one. So I’ll just treat it as ‘irrelevant’ as a baseless gainsaying rebuttal to anyone else’s line of thinking.” How very whiny.
I don't see how ICANN can be considered private enterprise, I doubt that's an uncommon "system of logic" and your argument has been predominantly mudslinging, first that I'm unable to understand the question and now that I'm "whiny."
Why does ICANN being “private enterprise” relate to the question of when it’s appropriate, in general, to consider the stated items? Whatever logic you’re applying here doesn’t make sense, and the certainty with which you think others should have to constrain topics of conversation to meet conditions of your confused logic absolutely comes off as entitled and whiny.
>Why does ICANN being “private enterprise” relate to the question of when it’s appropriate, in general, to consider the stated items?
As my original reply mentioned, if you control basic, necessary infrastructure your consideration of such things must be clear and strictly held. Those are the guidelines ICANN should follow, they set limits and must follow them.
Why would this be an area to discuss what guidelines other kinds of businesses should follow? It's an odd choice in my opinion, and my only advice to such businesses is "do as you wish."
And please stop the unnecessary insults. The only thing I have accused you of is mudslinging, and I don't feel there's any reason to call me "whiny" and "entitled" for possibly poorly wording my point.
As my original reply mentioned, if you control basic, necessary infrastructure your consideration of such things must be clear and strictly held. Those are the guidelines ICANN should follow, they set limits and must follow them.
Why would this be an area to discuss what guidelines other kinds of businesses should follow? It's an odd choice in my opinion, and my only advice to such businesses is "do as you wish."
And please stop the unnecessary insults. The only thing I have accused you of is mudslinging, and I don't feel there's any reason to call me "whiny" and "entitled" for possibly poorly wording my point.
> “ Why would this be an area to discuss what guidelines other kinds of businesses should follow?”
Because what guidelines to consider and why, in comparison with what ICANN considered, is highly relevant to the thread.
Because what guidelines to consider and why, in comparison with what ICANN considered, is highly relevant to the thread.
And is "it's entirely personal choice" not a fair answer to that? Some amount of convictions are false, why place unnecessary restrictions on yourself before knowing the exact situation?
I wonder if the concept of general availability from GPL is applicable here. If ICANN's DNS system wasn't generally available, like, say, invite-only system, maybe they would be in their right to moderate based on feels.
Lets follow this logic - are mobile phone providers free to deny service to people that critisize them publically for traking their movemwnts and selling data? Can they collate a blocklist of people they don't like and make sure you get no service anywhere?
Can Banks, insurance firms, water and electricity companies do the same?
Can they phone up your internet provider and offer to pay them twice whatever you pay just to terminate you internet connection? Doesn't the internet provider have the right to choose whatever is best deal for them?
You can either have personal libery or corporate liberty, not both
Can Banks, insurance firms, water and electricity companies do the same?
Can they phone up your internet provider and offer to pay them twice whatever you pay just to terminate you internet connection? Doesn't the internet provider have the right to choose whatever is best deal for them?
You can either have personal libery or corporate liberty, not both
Let's follow the logic the other way: does someone with multiple fraud convictions have an inalienable right to a merchant account and a massive line of credit? Perhaps, in the interests of personal liberty, hospitals should be obliged to grant witch doctors and those guilty of gross medical malpractice a salary and the right to use their operating theatre?
Freedom to act and freedom not to contract sometimes conflict, and contrary to some people's beliefs, it is possible to assess things on a case by case basis. In this case, being an ICANN-accredited registrar doesn't seem to obviously be an fundamental right, and convictions for IP-related crimes doesn't seem like particularly unreasonable grounds for not giving someone a rare level of privilege in the IP-registration business.
Freedom to act and freedom not to contract sometimes conflict, and contrary to some people's beliefs, it is possible to assess things on a case by case basis. In this case, being an ICANN-accredited registrar doesn't seem to obviously be an fundamental right, and convictions for IP-related crimes doesn't seem like particularly unreasonable grounds for not giving someone a rare level of privilege in the IP-registration business.
"Perhaps, in the interests of personal liberty, hospitals should be obliged to grant witch doctors and those guilty of gross medical malpractice a salary and the right to use their operating theatre?"
I dont think I've ever seen such a contrived strawman
I dont think I've ever seen such a contrived strawman
Is there moral character clause in the requirements? When I looked into it, the reaqs were mostly operational/technical.
If there is no moral clause, and all other criteria are met, then I question the legitimacy of the declining. If there is a moral clause, then I'd like to know on what grounds.
If there is no moral clause, and all other criteria are met, then I question the legitimacy of the declining. If there is a moral clause, then I'd like to know on what grounds.
If there are doctors guilty of medical malpractice, at some point they were not detected. And Sunde already has IP-registration business since 2017: https://njal.la/
What's popular (dictated by the powers that be, the corporations etc, via marketing etc) is justified by calling it "right". And everything else is justified by calling it "free".
That sums the present conversation I think.
That sums the present conversation I think.
Irrelevant question. This isn't about private business relationships, it's about a non-profit organisation entrusted with sole authority over public infrastructure.
And this is an important distinction because?
He’s been denied accreditation for his business to resell certain domains, not kicked off the internet.
Would it not be reasonable for, e.g. a publicly owned national electricity grid to refuse to accredit a new energy business which is run by someone who previously published “how to circumvent your electricity meter”? I don’t even know if such a thing would be illegal to publish, but even if it isn’t illegal, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.
He’s been denied accreditation for his business to resell certain domains, not kicked off the internet.
Would it not be reasonable for, e.g. a publicly owned national electricity grid to refuse to accredit a new energy business which is run by someone who previously published “how to circumvent your electricity meter”? I don’t even know if such a thing would be illegal to publish, but even if it isn’t illegal, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.
> I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.
It would not just be unreasonable, for a rehabbed offender, but also stupid. The people who know the ins and outs of systems are the ones best placed to suggest improvements to the status quo. I wouldn't think this necessary to be explained on Hacker News, but here we are.
It would not just be unreasonable, for a rehabbed offender, but also stupid. The people who know the ins and outs of systems are the ones best placed to suggest improvements to the status quo. I wouldn't think this necessary to be explained on Hacker News, but here we are.
> rehabbed
This is the core of my question C -- Is it reasonable to judge someone's current trustworthiness by what they say about their past actions?
This is the core of my question C -- Is it reasonable to judge someone's current trustworthiness by what they say about their past actions?
[deleted]
If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place?
Contracts are written and signed to ensure that trust isn't necessary, because the contracts can be enforced.
Contracts are written and signed to ensure that trust isn't necessary, because the contracts can be enforced.
If your last 3 orders of Amazon didn't arrive and you had to sue them to get the money back, will you order there again or will you first try somewhere else?
Trust may not be necessary on paper but it is a huge competitive advantage, and a strong distrust is a total dealbreaker for most potential business partners.
Trust may not be necessary on paper but it is a huge competitive advantage, and a strong distrust is a total dealbreaker for most potential business partners.
Contracts are sometimes a useful deterrent, because going to court sucks and can cost you a lot of money. They're also not a replacement for trust, because going to court sucks and can cost a lot of money.
Enforcing contracts is expensive, and if someone obtains a significant amount of goods and services the money may not be recoverable even if there's a contractual ability to do so (as it doesn't exist), people may simply go on the run, people may engage in outright fraud.
Trust is vital in a business relationship. Contracts are a useful backup against a legitimate body, but they are not much use against someone who has literally a proven track record of going on the run from law enforcement.
Trust is vital in a business relationship. Contracts are a useful backup against a legitimate body, but they are not much use against someone who has literally a proven track record of going on the run from law enforcement.
> If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place?
Please don't downvote /u/ThePadawan for this. It is an important foundational question. It is a hard question to answer in the same way that "If you're forging steel, why are you talking about iron crystal structures in the first place?" is a hard question to answer.
I'd be keen to read an answer from someone more articulate than I.
Please don't downvote /u/ThePadawan for this. It is an important foundational question. It is a hard question to answer in the same way that "If you're forging steel, why are you talking about iron crystal structures in the first place?" is a hard question to answer.
I'd be keen to read an answer from someone more articulate than I.
The contract is mostly there so that it's clear what each party is trusting the other to do.
Enforcing a contract is often not worthwhile.
Enforcing a contract is often not worthwhile.
My guess is that ICANN knows full well that he's going to appeal the decision and win and they are probably fine with that. It gives them coverage to respond to intellectual property interests, and the governments they hold sway over with "See! We tried!".
It's an unfortunate waste of registrant fees in expensive legal consulting, it's a waste of people's time, and it demonstrates the power that IP holds within the ICANN community.
It's an unfortunate waste of registrant fees in expensive legal consulting, it's a waste of people's time, and it demonstrates the power that IP holds within the ICANN community.
I'd like to hear a statement from ICANN regarding this before I jump to any conclusions, so far TF seem to just be repeating whatever Sunde tells them without any other sources. There's about a thousand different reasons I could see ICANN rejecting Sunde's company depending on how the appliction process went.
Can't he sue? Surely their excuse will not hold up in court.
I think a anti-trust one to break up ICANN would be good.
You want the ITU to run the domain system then - there are more than a few ITU members who would love that
I said break up, not move to the ITU.
ICANN is not really the same as a US company here - not quite sure you realise some of the politics behind this.
Registration fees are sure to go up, to pay for wanting to be the center of the internet.
Just put DNS in a blockchain with some cost to buy a domain forever, and voila, problem solved.
I think ICANN is wrong IMO
Good call by ICANN.
wow what a shame? Controlling the internet just because one person has a different political view? This might be reason why Domain Name price is sky rocketing :/
Last I checked, ICANN fees are still less than a buck per year. It's the registrars that are increasing the price.
He lied on the form, everything else is anecdotal.
What was the lie?
> The accreditation form requires applicants to tick a box if they have been convicted for fraud or something similar. Sunde didn’t tick this box, as he was convicted for criminal copyright infringement. This ‘error’ was swiftly noticed by ICANN, which is also uneasy with other parts of the Pirate Bay founder’s history.
Ironically, this was a better proof of transparency than what most "problematic" people would subject themselves to. If any vanilla oligarch wanted to be in those circles, he would just pay some squeaky-clean individual to be his stooge, and then make it known, after registration, who the real power is. Sunde could have configured himself as a freelance consultant to his friends, and he would not have appeared on any radar. This would have made his business work, but it would not have advanced the perennial conversation about ICANN's original sins, which have become more and more untolerable with the years.
ICANN were pretty stupid to just veto his admission. That's not how you deal with institutional critics. They could have simply brought him in, then informally and formally vetoed anything he wanted to do. They have experience with people who tried to blow up things "from inside" in the past, so clearly they've developed countermeasures ready for that scenario. Or they could have given him something, enough to behold him, so he'd have an incentive to stay in the tent and piss outside rather than the other way around.
This attitude proved Sunde is fundamentally right on the subject matter, like him or not as a person.