[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

Sun Feb 23 17:05:56 UTC 2014

On 20 Feb 2014, at 10:07 pm, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 13:09 20/02/2014, David Cake wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Feb 2014, at 12:52 am, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > At 01:24 19/02/2014, Don Blumenthal wrote:
>> >> Assuming that ICE refers to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
>> >> domain-related court orders that it has obtained from judges generally
>> >> contain redirects at the name server level
>> >
>> > Hosts can be accessed by their IP.
>> In theory. In practice, it would likely require specialised browsing software to simultaneously access a server via its IP (not using the DNS) while passing the server name (expressed as a URL containing a domain name) via http, so that the multi-homed web browser knew which of the multiple hosted web sites to serve. Housing multiple web sites on the same IP address isn't always done, but it is so common as to be ubiquitous. I'm not aware of a way to do this using a common browser.
> 
> Please, if you really want to talk about IG, dont thinking other people are dumb stupid.

	Not everyone involved in IG knows the first thing about web hosting. It is worth explaining even if you do understand it. 

> If you have been subject to an ICE action you have the money to afford a dedicated IP.

	Why would you assume that? They might have the money to do so, but that doesn't mean they always do. Or that an ICE action is the only issue here? 
	We've had as case in Australia in the last few year of mass blocking of hosted web sites due to an enforcement agency (a very inexperienced on, getting a little over-excited with certain not often used legislative powers) block an IP address of a site hosted on massive commercial hosting, blocking a few thousand sites. As it turned out, it was a financial regulator who intended to block a single fraudulent site, but due to inexperience specified IP not address. 

> You see, I am afraid this kind of discussion denotes a local juridical spirit, that local people from other places cannot understand: this makes the discussion to become confuse.  Moreover, when we use "local" in the loose Vint Cerf's IEN 48 meaning.
> 
> What would be more interesting would be to explain how a US Justice decision can directly impact the access to a site located at a non-US server

	Not just US, but any international blocking. 
	Cheers

		David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140224/869229af/signature.asc>