"Last week, when the Department of Homeland Security leaned on Mozilla to remove a Firefox add-on making it simple to bypass domain name seizures, we wondered at the request. After all, the add-on only made it easier to do a simple Google search, and we wondered "what the next logical step in this progression will be: requiring search engines to stop returning results for seized domain names?" Turns out that's exactly what's being contemplated."
That's sufficient, really. China's firewall can be penetrated, it's just too much of a bother for the average citizen - which suffices to maintain stability.
I'd like to see the arguments for a bill like this. What exactly can they say that prevents it from infringing on the basic rights listed in the Bill of Rights
5 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 25.2 ms ] thread"Last week, when the Department of Homeland Security leaned on Mozilla to remove a Firefox add-on making it simple to bypass domain name seizures, we wondered at the request. After all, the add-on only made it easier to do a simple Google search, and we wondered "what the next logical step in this progression will be: requiring search engines to stop returning results for seized domain names?" Turns out that's exactly what's being contemplated."
Also, how long will it be after it is enforced that the affected sites start moving to underground networks like I2P?
We, unlike china, have the right to speak freely.