The Growing Threat to Internet Infrastructure: Site Blocking and its Impact on a Free and Open Web
The internet relies on a complex network of infrastructure – the ”plumbing” that keeps everything flowing. Increasingly, this foundational layer is under threat from aggressive copyright enforcement tactics, specifically site-blocking orders. These orders aren’t targeting pirates directly, but rather the neutral intermediaries that enable the internet to function: ISPs, VPNs, and crucially, DNS providers like Quad9.
This article dives into the escalating issue, exploring the challenges it poses to a free and open web, and what it means for you.
The Shift in Enforcement: From Pirates to Providers
For years, copyright holders have pursued legal action against individuals and platforms directly involved in copyright infringement. However, a concerning trend is emerging. Instead of focusing on those directly profiting from piracy, rights holders are increasingly turning their attention to neutral infrastructure providers.
Quad9, a non-profit DNS resolver dedicated to security and privacy, recently found itself embroiled in a French site-blocking case. They chose not to contest the order, highlighting a critical dilemma. Why? Because fighting these battles is expensive and resource-intensive, particularly for smaller organizations.
This shift places a disproportionate burden on these providers, forcing them to act as internet police. It’s a problematic approach, especially considering the global nature of the internet.
Why DNS Providers are in the Crosshairs
DNS (Domain Name System) providers translate human-readable website addresses (like google.com) into the numerical IP addresses computers use to locate them. Blocking access at the DNS level effectively makes websites unreachable.
Here’s why targeting DNS providers is so impactful:
* Broad reach: DNS servers are fundamental to internet access. Blocking at this level affects a large number of users.
* Infrastructure Impact: DNS providers are essential infrastructure. Pressuring them disrupts the core functionality of the internet.
* Disproportionate Burden: Smaller providers lack the resources to effectively fight these legal battles or implement geographically-limited blocking.
As Quad9 points out, this isn’t about stopping piracy; it’s about holding neutral parties responsible for the actions of others.
The French Example & Cisco’s Exit
the situation in France exemplifies this growing trend. Courts have issued blocking orders, and the consequences are already being felt.
Cisco,a major networking equipment provider,decided to leave France in response to these measures. While larger companies like Google and Cloudflare can technically limit blocking to French users, many providers, including Quad9, are forced to implement the restrictions globally.
This illustrates a key point: these actions aren’t contained within national borders. They have ripple effects across the entire internet.
Critical Questions for the Future of the Internet
Quad9’s experience raises fundamental questions about the future of the internet. They’ve articulated several crucial points that demand broader discussion:
* Neutrality: Should neutral technical infrastructure be held liable for the actions of others?
* Jurisdiction: How far should courts reach across international borders to enforce national laws on a global network?
* Sustainability: Can small non-profits realistically survive under legal obligations designed for massive corporations?
* Privacy & Resilience: What happens to user privacy and internet resilience when only a handful of companies can afford to comply with these orders?
* Censorship: At what point does legal compliance become de facto censorship?
These aren’t merely academic questions for Quad9. They’ve already faced a costly, multi-year legal battle against Sony in Germany, and now face a similar ”existential threat” in France.
