It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Google has signaled that the company is prepared to oppose the major film and music companies as well as Congress and the president of the United States on a controversial bill designed to thwart online piracy.
Schmidt said: "If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it..."
Originally posted by enteri
I would give my left testicle to get to work at Google.
Originally posted by whatisanameanyway
The one thing that Google really could do is help inform people of the risks in this system, particularly feature-creep. EG a website providing safe-sex information in an "abstinence-only" state - block their DNS!
Originally posted by Bixxi3
I didn't even know about that. That really worrying. this crosses a line in my opinion and i do hope that google can do something. Another thing i thought about is if this only effects the American servers can we not just go to say google.co.uk? And does anyone know if proxys would be effective against this?
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Originally posted by enteri
I would give my left testicle to get to work at Google.
Then you would have zero lol.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You would have to go through a completely illegal network, but this is an option and many people have been considering it. If the government forced this upon ISPs, your ISP is your gateway to the rest of the world, including to British versions of websites. So they would be nipping your connection at the bud so to speak. You would have to go through a completely different network.
"We removed certain specific URLs in response to a notification submitted by the Religious Technology Center and Bridge Publications under section 512(c)(3) of the the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Had we not removed these URLs, we would be subject to a claim for copyright infringement, regardless of its merits."
"If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it..."