TPP provisions on domain names

Post Reply
drllau
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

TPP provisions on domain names

Post by drllau » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:47 am

The EFF has analysed the leaked IP chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In particular the comment on ICANN noted the privacy issues of a centralised DNS system
The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”
and the stringent, potentially criminal penalties for breaking Technological Protection Measures or even circumventing DRM even if fair use/dealings is the intent, independent of infringement of copyright. This poses a double edged sword for Namecoin because if it can be used to uniquely identify web-content, then it can be umbrella for asserting private and original authorship but since many works are compositions (images, links, etc) it could also expose the owners to take-down notices.

The EFF has also written other articles attacking ASEAN regional agreements showing how the US is leveraging single country FTAs into multilateral pacts that in turn is being replicated in alternatives.

phelix
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by phelix » Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:04 pm

I guess even with .bit we should honor copyrights. :mrgreen:
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

somename
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:12 pm
os: windows

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by somename » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:19 pm

phelix wrote:I guess even with .bit we should honor copyrights. :mrgreen:
I think that refers to only signee-country domains (.jp, .us, .au, etc.) because those are what countries actually control.

.bit isn't under anyone's jurisdiction (or is it?) and there's no method of enforcement (or is there?).

phelix
Posts: 1625
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by phelix » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:16 pm

somename wrote:
phelix wrote:I guess even with .bit we should honor copyrights. :mrgreen:
I think that refers to only signee-country domains (.jp, .us, .au, etc.) because those are what countries actually control.

.bit isn't under anyone's jurisdiction (or is it?) and there's no method of enforcement (or is there?).
I hope not.

What I meant was that even with a .bit domain you can be sued (given you are known).
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

somename
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:12 pm
os: windows

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by somename » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:48 am

phelix wrote:
somename wrote:
phelix wrote:I guess even with .bit we should honor copyrights. :mrgreen:
I think that refers to only signee-country domains (.jp, .us, .au, etc.) because those are what countries actually control.

.bit isn't under anyone's jurisdiction (or is it?) and there's no method of enforcement (or is there?).
I hope not.

What I meant was that even with a .bit domain you can be sued (given you are known).
Ah, yes. And you'd have to reside in a country that's party to the agreement, otherwise you might still remain out of reach.

biolizard89
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by biolizard89 » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:11 am

This is yet another example of why we need anonymity in Namecoin. That would give us a clear advantage over the ccTLD's affected by the TPP.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

drllau
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by drllau » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:06 am

If you read the actual text (and seen the context), this TPP is designed to be an open-ended framework that additional countries can enter, hence whilst as nationals of signatory countries (even if incorporated since you can be legally served) in the signatories, eventually the objective of the IPmaximalists is to push their agenda globally. This is due to the US strategy of leveraging bilateral trade agreements (twisting arms of "allies" like South Korea + Australia) into mouth-pieces into multi-lateral agreements such as TPP. After the developing countries wised up after WIPO, there was no way they could railroad another world-wide incumbant-friendly agreement so they've tried alternative approaches.
This is yet another example of why we need anonymity in Namecoin. That would give us a clear advantage over the ccTLD's affected by the TPP.
The more subtle point is that every financial transaction, whether cryptocurrency or standard banking is being blanketed under AML and KYC legislation, under the guise of combatting terrorism (funny how that definition doesn't cover random bolts of fire from the sky) so that TRUE anonymity is becoming harder. There enough meta data-around, whether from tracing the IMEI of the contact mobile numbers you use for registry info or pattern of tor access (guessing timezones). Since every digital asset must have an "owner" which if nothing else, upon death needs to be sorted out by estate/liquidators given enough effort, any identity can be eventually discoverable (proveable is another matter as technically you still need subpoenas or warrants).

Given recent revelations NameCoin might just be a sandcastle standing Caute-like on front of a tide of intrusion because whilst the site contents might be safe from censorship, if they can track your real-life identity and threaten your social connections (shame, bribe, extortion etc) a takedown can still result.

biolizard89
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by biolizard89 » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:07 am

I'm actually not convinced that all identities are necessarily discoverable. Good opsec is needed, but assuming good opsec, lots of people are pretty effective at staying anonymous. The well-known deanonymization cases such as Ross Ulbricht were solved by exploiting crappy opsec. (The Silk Road server in Iceland might have been found by surveillance, but that wouldn't have resulted in Ulbricht being traced except that he wasn't using Tor to connect to that server.) Most of the sources of WikiLeaks and The Intercept haven't been caught. The 3 WikiLeaks sources who were caught (Hammond, Manning, and Kernel) were exposed by opsec issues.

Now, to be fair, it takes a *lot* of skill to avoid making opsec mistakes. And according to adrelanos, practicing good opsec for an extended period of time (e.g. when you're running a website anonymously) is really, really bad for your mental health. It is not the kind of thing that an average person can do, at least not with today's technology.

In any event, you're right that Namecoin's censorship resistance is pretty much useless if your adversary can track you down and coerce you into self-censoring.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

drllau
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Sydney Singapore Shanghai
Contact:

Re: TPP provisions on domain names

Post by drllau » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:07 am

Another analysis confirming the unmasking of contact information. In addition, ISP have to provided site blocking or traffic shaping, most likely in connection with notice & takedown procedures which avoid any judicial intervention (guilty until proven innocent since rightsholders become prosecutor, judge and jury to threaten people en-mass directly) thus requiring ISPs to hand over subscriber information.

Post Reply