Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd have to dig further - but last time I fiddled around with some sites on my home computer I remember something called "dynamic DNS" which allowed anyone anywhere (even with changing IP's) to host a full blown web site.
Are you saying that something is stopping SF from setting up a computer at home and hosting a web site on it using Dynamic DNS?
It worked perfectly when I tried it for some sites.
And, will no other country, hosting service or registrar allow them DNS?
If both were 100% true, then I would agree with you. But I doubt they are.
You appear to talk more than you know. The linkage between "stormfront.org" and an IP address is the issue.
And the content of the web site is another. I maintain my own and can be back up someplace else in a few hours. But a big site often turns this over to the hosting operation and lacks the resources to successfully restore.
And presuming stormfront sues and gets its site back from the host...what happens in the two years they are down.
The issue is an ugly one. And you hate to fight these issues when a set of sleeze bags is the victim. But that is how it has to be.
White supremacists would be better off owning their own servers and data centers.
Or, better yet, unrelated companies could offer to host their content at a premium. Might as well make some extra money if they're desperate enough to want to be heard.
You appear to talk more than you know. The linkage between "stormfront.org" and an IP address is the issue.
And the content of the web site is another. I maintain my own and can be back up someplace else in a few hours. But a big site often turns this over to the hosting operation and lacks the resources to successfully restore.
And presuming stormfront sues and gets its site back from the host...what happens in the two years they are down.
The issue is an ugly one. And you hate to fight these issues when a set of sleeze bags is the victim. But that is how it has to be.
I'm not sure if you have a good understanding of how these things work. What throws me off is your statement about getting the site back from the host.
As long as there's any level of competency (which I'm sure there is), there's no need to "get the site back from the host". They can simply deploy the site on another host from their source and backups.
The right of any hosting service to select or deselect clients is clear. This one however goes well past that. They have not just stopped hosting the site but they have effectively blocked it from moving.
And the overall situation is more complex than you indicate. The internet is a utility which operates with government agreement. So government action to assure the ability of the unpopular to participate is in order. ICANN is a quasi goverment authority whether we admit or not.
So the sleeze bags at Stormfront have a right to their site.
I've changed my position. This post of yours made me wonder if I was missing something, so I googled some stories about this. And sure enough, I was. I thought they'd just booted the site - but in fact they have seized it, and that's a different pocketful of rats entirely.
This is a lot more troubling than I first realized. This is more than a "private business choosing who to do business with" issue. This is a legitimate "private business infringing on free expression and seizing private property" issue. I want to read more about this, but on the face of it I'm not comfortable with this action at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDoPhysicsPhD
I'm not sure if you have a good understanding of how these things work. What throws me off is your statement about getting the site back from the host.
As long as there's any level of competency (which I'm sure there is), there's no need to "get the site back from the host". They can simply deploy the site on another host from their source and backups.
Except the domain itself has apparently been seized, as well. That domain is private property, and a very valuable business asset. Sure, they can register "stornmfront2.org" or whatever, but their original doman has been confiscated by a private party. That's problematic.
You appear to talk more than you know. The linkage between "stormfront.org" and an IP address is the issue.
And the content of the web site is another. I maintain my own and can be back up someplace else in a few hours. But a big site often turns this over to the hosting operation and lacks the resources to successfully restore.
And presuming stormfront sues and gets its site back from the host...what happens in the two years they are down.
The issue is an ugly one. And you hate to fight these issues when a set of sleeze bags is the victim. But that is how it has to be.
Having had computers since 1979 and published large web sites (millions of monthly views) since 1994, I think I get the basics of how these things work.
First, as I'm sure you agree, every sane person has backups. So that is not an issue. If they lose the site for that reason, they deserve it (I lost lots of stuff when I was ignorant of the basics of backup).
Also, if SF has a legal case to get their content back, they can sue. However, a host has no obligation to posses backups or data, so they could simply have deleted it so this wouldn't come up later. Again, if SF has been wronged, they can sue for damages.
A web site is not tied to an IP for more than a few moments. The tables on the internet are constantly refreshed. You can have 100 web sites at one IP....or a web site with no fixed IP (dynamic DNS).
Now - if I understand you right you may be claiming that the registrar is inserting false information into the update tables constantly...which I have a hard time with...thinking that this is not legal nor would they do this. This would be actively (daily, hourly) putting in false information about the IP and name.
More likely they just removed the DNS entry altogether. That means SF can find a new IP (or use dynamic to host it at home, etc.)....and then update the tables and - done! Stormfront then equals the new IP.
Taking it even further, since "the google" knows all, the SF forum guys could simply register a new URL called "stoormfront" or "strumfront" and then, in the text of the front page and meta descriptions, call it Storm Front. In about a week everyone would find the new URL.
I don't see ANY situation where the site cannot be put back up IF the admins don't want to play "victim".
I'm not sure if you have a good understanding of how these things work. What throws me off is your statement about getting the site back from the host.
As long as there's any level of competency (which I'm sure there is), there's no need to "get the site back from the host". They can simply deploy the site on another host from their source and backups.
The name itself shouldn't be an issue. That can be registered separate from the host server. All files are stored with the host server and although website owners do download all files from time to time, especially when switching hosts, it doesn't happen that often. If the host server locked down the files and locked out the site owner, then the owner does not have access to the site files and cannot upload them to a new server.
I'm not sure if you have a good understanding of how these things work. What throws me off is your statement about getting the site back from the host.
As long as there's any level of competency (which I'm sure there is), there's no need to "get the site back from the host". They can simply deploy the site on another host from their source and backups.
Please. I have been in this art since at least 20 years before it began. I do understand it and what happened to a level that few can reach. And I understand its practicalities as well.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Stormfront has been blindsided by its supplier. Simple as that.
Having had computers since 1979 and published large web sites (millions of monthly views) since 1994, I think I get the basics of how these things work.
First, as I'm sure you agree, every sane person has backups. So that is not an issue. If they lose the site for that reason, they deserve it (I lost lots of stuff when I was ignorant of the basics of backup).
Also, if SF has a legal case to get their content back, they can sue. However, a host has no obligation to posses backups or data, so they could simply have deleted it so this wouldn't come up later. Again, if SF has been wronged, they can sue for damages.
A web site is not tied to an IP for more than a few moments. The tables on the internet are constantly refreshed. You can have 100 web sites at one IP....or a web site with no fixed IP (dynamic DNS).
Now - if I understand you right you may be claiming that the registrar is inserting false information into the update tables constantly...which I have a hard time with...thinking that this is not legal nor would they do this. This would be actively (daily, hourly) putting in false information about the IP and name.
More likely they just removed the DNS entry altogether. That means SF can find a new IP (or use dynamic to host it at home, etc.)....and then update the tables and - done! Stormfront then equals the new IP.
Taking it even further, since "the google" knows all, the SF forum guys could simply register a new URL called "stoormfront" or "strumfront" and then, in the text of the front page and meta descriptions, call it Storm Front. In about a week everyone would find the new URL.
I don't see ANY situation where the site cannot be put back up IF the admins don't want to play "victim".
The host server doesn't have to keep a backup, but they are paid to keep the original files. If the host server decided to delete an entire website, other users of that server would very quickly find another host server.
Why. Who wants to do business with white supremacists. It's no different then them not allowing Islamist websites.
100% free speech isn't all that some crack it up to be. Some voices should be suppressed.
If talking ANY kind of "supremacist" site; I get where you're coming from. Tho the big thing now is the different "hate" pages will really go underground which will make it tougher for LE and, I ain't talking just "Tor" level underground either.
If talking ANY kind of "supremacist" site; I get where you're coming from. Tho the big thing now is the different "hate" pages will really go underground which will make it tougher for LE and, I ain't talking just "Tor" level underground either.
Sites that go underground will only attract hard core followers, and regular internet users will not stumble onto the sites. That's perhaps the objective - to drive them to the deep web where investigators keep an eye on them, and every day youth can't find them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
