[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Feb 20 14:07:54 UTC 2014

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

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.

More information about the discuss mailing list