Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limitation Relating to Interactive Computer Services-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Relief granted under this section against an interactive computer service shall--

`(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating this subchapter, or a hypertext link to an online site violating this subchapter, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under this section under section 5367;

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this to say that if the government obtains an order from a judge, the order shall be limited to telling the ISP (or internet server or whatever it is) that it must remove a casino that's located on its server, or remove links to casinos that are located on its servers.

In other words, they can't "punish" the servers. They can just tell them to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
`(B) be available only after notice to the interactive computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying they have to have a hearing, before they can get an order telling them to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
`(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity violating this subchapter;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying they can't put any obligation on servers to monitor what's on their servers. They're free to leave the links there, until a judge tells them otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and

`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying the government must tell them EXACTLY what to do. "Take down gambling links" isn't enough, they have to say which links.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

In other words, internet providers are an important constituency, the the law is going out of its way to make things easy for them.

They're not willing to put any burden on US industry.

Instead, the burden is on law enforcement to go to court and obtain orders from Federal judges telling servers specifically which links need to be removed.

Going to court is time-consuming and cumbersome. Given that many servers are not in the US, and that links can appear and disappear at the click of a button, I'm guessing trying to police the internet this way is going to be a lot like trying to sweep the ocean back with a broom - frustrating and ineffective.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]

If someone with more technical knowledge could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. But to my understanding there's no way anybody can keep track of where everybody's going on the internet, and there's no way for your bank to know what you're going to do with your money, once you've transferred it to a third party.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and

`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying the government must tell them EXACTLY what to do. "Take down gambling links" isn't enough, they have to say which links.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you asked for a technical opinion... I am a network engineer, have been since the early days of the Internet, ran a couple of IPS's, built a datacenter or two...

Now speak strictly from a technical point of view, not moral, or the law or anything else.

Yes your ISP can 100% for sure block your access to PS, PP, UB, etc.

Are there ways to get around your ISP's efforts to block you? Yes. Can the ISP stop that traffic too, yes. Can an ISP block just any thing you want to come up, yes. It's only a matter of time, motivation and money.

There is a technology that is refered to as IPS (intrustion prevention system). This a device, or software that scans each and every tiny piece of information that passes thru it. It would be placed between you and the Internet. They use what is called a "signature" to match traffic to filters, filters written to block traffic. The signatures can be updated at any time. In fact most IPS vendors update their signatures at least once a week, often more than once a week.

In fact I work for the best of breed IPS manufactor for my current "day" job right now. And I can assure you that I can block any P2P (e.g. asureus, [censored]) application, or any application that I know the destination IP's for. And if some new application comes out, or some application gets updated, I will have a new hot signature to apply to traffic in a week or less.

So to sum it up, unless you bypass your ISP completely, you can be blocked.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If someone with more technical knowledge could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. But to my understanding there's no way anybody can keep track of where everybody's going on the internet, and there's no way for your bank to know what you're going to do with your money, once you've transferred it to a third party.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and

`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying the government must tell them EXACTLY what to do. "Take down gambling links" isn't enough, they have to say which links.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you asked for a technical opinion... I am a network engineer, have been since the early days of the Internet, ran a couple of IPS's, built a datacenter or two...

Now speak strictly from a technical point of view, not moral, or the law or anything else.

Yes your ISP can 100% for sure block your access to PS, PP, UB, etc.

Are there ways to get around your ISP's efforts to block you? Yes. Can the ISP stop that traffic too, yes. Can an ISP block just any thing you want to come up, yes. It's only a matter of time, motivation and money.

There is a technology that is refered to as IPS (intrustion prevention system). This a device, or software that scans each and every tiny piece of information that passes thru it. It would be placed between you and the Internet. They use what is called a "signature" to match traffic to filters, filters written to block traffic. The signatures can be updated at any time. In fact most IPS vendors update their signatures at least once a week, often more than once a week.

In fact I work for the best of breed IPS manufactor for my current "day" job right now. And I can assure you that I can block any P2P (e.g. asureus, [censored]) application, or any application that I know the destination IP's for. And if some new application comes out, or some application gets updated, I will have a new hot signature to apply to traffic in a week or less.

So to sum it up, unless you bypass your ISP completely, you can be blocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sucks. Let's all hope the senate lets this die.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

So, it appears that the ISPs have the technical ability to block sites fairly effectively, but that the law would not require them to be proactive about blocking them.

So, if the Justice Dept (or whoever is in charge of this if it passes) tells all the ISPs to block the major sites, they'll be blocked. But if the sites change the addresses, then there is a legal process that the JD has to go through to tell them to block that new address, rather than the ISPs being told to figure it out and block them on their own.

So, it seems likely to me that the sites will be able to stay ahead of the ISPs on this front.

The law would still kill casual participation. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] But, it's looking somewhat feasible for determined US players to keep playing ... no penalties in the law for the player, cash out to check?

B.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
The law would still kill casual participation. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] But, it's looking somewhat feasible for determined US players to keep playing ... no penalties in the law for the player, cash out to check?
B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that will be great. We'll all be playing a bunch of sharks rather than the casual fish who currently make the game so lucrative for those who know how to play it.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, it appears that the ISPs have the technical ability to block sites fairly effectively, but that the law would not require them to be proactive about blocking them.

So, if the Justice Dept (or whoever is in charge of this if it passes) tells all the ISPs to block the major sites, they'll be blocked. But if the sites change the addresses, then there is a legal process that the JD has to go through to tell them to block that new address, rather than the ISPs being told to figure it out and block them on their own.

B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Benjamin, I'm not sure about that. The bill seems to limit it to links and sites "that reside[] on a computer server that such service controls or operates."

In other words, they can only order ISPs to shut down sites and links on their own servers, not on somebody else's. And, of course, poker sites are all on foreign servers.

What I don't know is how search engines like Google work.

When you search for "Party Poker," and the link comes up, is that link "on" Google's servers?