Recently I’ve started using Hover as my main domain registrar, an excellent alternative to the popular GoDaddy which is where many people buy their domain names from. Like many others, I have got tired of GoDaddy’s site and service. Their CEO’s elephant-killing antics didn’t help with their public image too.

Today, we have another reason to ditch GoDaddy – they are a supporter of the Stop Online Piracy Act. While stopping online piracy is a noble cause, this bill being put forward by US lawmakers is really dumb. So dumb that Google, Yahoo!, Twitter, Craigslist and many other internet giants are opposed against the bill. Ars Technica has a great explanation on why SOPA is so bad.

Anyway, back to Hover. Go check out their website and compare them against GoDaddy. They currently have a promotion where transferring domains to Hover only costs USD10.

P.S. Use my affiliate link and get 10% off  http://hover.com/clickstarter

Related posts:

1. 5 mistakes
2. The Star: Online users bypass block
3. Say NO to Malaysia’s three strikes law (ISP Liability Act)

Recently the Malaysian Commission for Multimedia and Communications (MCMC) issued a directive to local ISPs to filter a number of file sharing websites because they violate the Copyright Act. While some of the content may be in violation of the Act, some think the Government is being too heavy handed by issuing a blanket order to block these sites.

I don’t want to debate the Government’s decision, but I believe that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to access websites that your Government / ISP / employer doesn’t want you to. This article will explain what is DNS filtering and show you 3 ways to get around it.

What is DNS blocking?

DNS blocking or filtering is a common method of denying access to certain websites. Let’s have a look at how it works.

Each website is hosted on a web server that has a IP address. For example, the IP address for Facebook is 69.63.189.16. If you type those numbers in your web browser, you will arrive at Facebook’s website. Try it – http://69.63.189.16/.

However, IP addresses are not very user friendly. It’s easier to remember facebook.com than 69.63.189.16 isn’t it? Therefore the inventors of the internet also created a phone book called the Domain Name System, or DNS.

The DNS translates domain names into IP addresses so that you don’t have to remember random strings of numbers. Each ISP (e.g. Streamyx, P1, etc) have their own DNS servers that functions as phone books for their subscribers.

Whenever you type a website address into your browser, your browser first asks the ISP’s phone book what the IP address for that website. Once it’s figured out the IP address it will then load the website for you.

With DNS blocking, the ISP is simply removing the record for the blocked websites from their phone book. So when you try to load one of the blocked websites, all you get is a blank screen in your browser because it doesn’t know what the IP address is.

3 ways to get around DNS blocking

1. Use another DNS server / phone book

What do you do if your phone book doesn’t contain the address you are looking for? You use another phone book!

Besides your ISP, other organizations also offer DNS servers. One such organization is Google. You can manually tell your computer to refer to Google’s DNS servers – 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 – and it should now be able to access the blocked sites again (unless Google also blocks them).

Google has detailed instructions on how to tell your Windows, Mac or Linux computer to use their DNS. For iPhone users, you can go to the Settings app » Wi-Fi Networks » tap the blue arrow for your current Wi-Fi network » type 8.8.8.8 in the DNS field.

Google DNS on iPhone

2. Use a Proxy server

A proxy server is a server that acts as an intermediary, relaying your request for connection to a webpage, file, or service on the Internet. It gets you around the DNS block because the proxy server should not rely on our local ISP’s DNS servers (phone books).

The downside to using a proxy is that all your passwords, cookie information, etc is being relayed though the intermediary. However if trying to access file sharing websites it’s probably not too much of a security concern.

There are many public proxy servers available – just try Googling for ‘free proxy server’. However many of the free ones plaster you with ads in return for their service. I have found a really good one with no ads at http://labnol-proxy-server.appspot.com/.

The proxy server above is created with Google App Engine. The creator even has a tutorial to show you how to make your own proxy server.

3. Use a VPN

A VPN is a secure connection from your computer to another computer or server. It works in pretty much the same way as a proxy sever, but it’s more secure. The TUVPN blog has a post that explains the differences between VPN and proxy servers.

The important thing is that using a VPN will also bypass the DNS block. If you only need to bypass these DNS blocks occasionally, Hotspot Shield is a free VPN service that you can use. It works for both Mac and PC and is a usable solution – just be prepared for the ads.

With great power comes great responsibility

I do not condone piracy. I believe that you should pay the content producers to support their work. The main reason I use VPNs is to get around Amazon.com’s geographic restrictions to buy digital content. Yes, I bypass filtering so that I can pay for content!

My guide here is to empower you with the knowledge to get around censorship from your government, ISP or employer if there are legitimate reasons for it. Use your knowledge wisely and responsibly!

If you found this article helpful, please share with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. Thanks!

Update: WirawanWeb.com has a similar article in Bahasa Melayu – Melepasi Sekatan Internet

Earlier this month, Google announced that it will drop support for the popular H.264 video codec from it’s Chrome browser. Being the web geek that I am, I’ve researched and thought about and wrestled with this issue to the detriment of my productivity.

And after all that I have come to the following conclusion: Google is at it again. And by ‘it’ I mean being two-faced liars who have lost my trust.

For background on this issue, see these 2 excellent articles:

• Google’s WebM v H.264: who wins and loses in the video codec wars? – guardian.co.uk Technology Blog
• Google’s dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness – Ars Technica

I want to believe that Google’s decision was motivated by the desire to help advance adoption of HTML5 video, which would make publishing video on the web so much easier. I really wish that Google is sincere in it’s claim of wanting to build an open web by promoting WebM, their open source video codec.

However, as the Ars Technica article points out, WebM is not as open as Google may want you to believe. They still control the project and different parts of the WebM source code are licensed differently. WebM is royalty-free, but not free of control from a single entity.

On top of this, here are a few more reasons why my evil-o-meter is screaming warnings that Google are two-faced liars:

1. Google includes an embedded Flash player in Google Chrome and in the Android OS. Flash is far more proprietary than H.264 and it’s practically a part of the Chrome browser since it’s embedded and not a plugin. This seems to be counter to the spirit of their decision to drop H.264.

2. Google continues to support GIF, JPG, MP3 and AAC in the Chrome browser. These are also patent-encumbered technologies and some even require royalties. If these are allowed, why not H.264? Again, this is inconsistent with their decision to drop H.264.

3. Google loves to play the ‘open’ card and portray themselves as a champion of open systems. But looking beneath the surface, Google is only open when it is convenient for them. They’ve shown this in their search and AdWords algorithms, in their open Android mobile OS and how Google allied themselves with Verizon to advocate recommendations that would damage net neutrality.

So really, who’s interest does the decision to drop H.264 support from Google Chrome serve? Not web developers and publishers who are now more inconvenienced. Not the web standards proponents who have a harder job selling HTML5′s <video> support. Not web users who are forced to rely on resource intensive, buggy Flash to play their web videos. Google’s decision benefits themselves, and to a smaller extent Adobe.

Come on Google, your two-faced inconsistencies suck. Instead of dropping support for H.264, how about dropping your motto? Remember? The one that says “Don’t be evil”.

Related posts:

1. The Ambiguity of “Open” and VP8 vs. H.264
2. Google Singapore opening soon
3. [RANT] Why I stopped trusting Google

The Star star reports that the Recording Industry of Malaysia is pushing for the ISP Liability Act to be tabled in Parliament. This law is the local version of the graduated response approach that recording industry groups, most notably the infamous Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)  has been lobbying for in other parts of the world.

In summary the law would hold Internet Service Providers (ISPs) responsible for acts of copyright infringement or piracy committed by their subscribers. The law is also known as the “three strikes law” because ISPs must issue 2 warnings before cutting off internet access to their subscribers, i.e. three strikes and you’re out.

This is a bad development

I am strongly against this move by the recording industry for the following reasons:

1) Policing copyright infringement is not the job of ISPs. They should be focusing on providing the best internet connectivity so that Malaysians can compete in the internet economy. Malaysian ISPs already have a tough time providing decent internet connection, now you expect them to be the piracy police?

2) Systems that monitor ISP networks for copyright infringement are not foolproof, and generally track users on a per-IP basis. DSLReports highlights a story from the UK about how an ISP highlighted the absurdity of such a system by driving around a city and downloading / pirating copyrighted songs from unprotected WiFi hotspots. They are also expensive and will increase the price of internet access for Malaysians. ISPs in New Zealand who also have a similar law are not happy about it.

3) The consumer’s rights are eroded because of a lack of due process. Because the ISP want to avoid getting fined, they may tend to be a little too trigger happy when disconnecting their users. In other countries e.g. France where similar laws have been enacted, consumers have been falsely labeled as music pirates and disconnected. After being cut off by their ISP, they face a difficult battle to subscribe to a new ISP because they have been blacklisted.

4) There are no good alternatives for consumers to download music legally in Malaysia. The truth is that the Malaysian recording industry doesn’t want you to download. In today’s day and age where almost every mobile phone can play music, they would rather you buy old-fashioned CDs. What online music download service is supported by the Malaysian recording industry? I don’t believe there are any. Please let me know in the comments if you do. With a lack of choice of legal alternatives, is it a surprise that many opt for the simple way to get music online?

The ISP Liability Act isn’t about preventing piracy, it’s about maintaining old business models for the recording industry

There are other, more effective ways to prevent piracy. Reduce the price of music. Offer affordable, legal alternatives. Put the consumer’s interest before the recording industry. Don’t cripple the digital files that you do offer with DRM. These are just some suggestions off the top of my head.

And stepping even further back, there has been no hard evidence that proves “illegal online downloads have been cannibalising the legitimate sales of music, worldwide”.

I DO NOT condone piracy

My intention is not to promote piracy and illegal copyright infringement. I am merely highlighting the flaws of this proposed law and advocate consumer rights.

I feel that Malaysian internet users should do something to express our dissatisfaction and make our views heard about this proposed law before it goes into effect. Any ideas? Do let me know in the comments.

Related reading

See the comments on No more illegal downloads? at Daily Chilli

New Straits Times: Pirated DVD buyers let off

Niki Cheong: Will the real pirates please stand up?

Related posts:

1. EMI drops DRM
2. Should the USA 'protect' the internet?
3. What DRM-free means for me

Lately I’ve been telling many of my friends to be very careful about Facebook because they don’t take our privacy seriously. This past week another company joins that list – Google. In addition to privacy, their business practices also make me highly suspicious of them.

Google’s recent actions have made me stop trusting them. I admit, these are very geek reasons that many of my friends won’t understand, but they’ve made me seriously reconsider my relationship to Google and how much I should support them.

Here’s the short version. They’re a great company but they hide behind their unoficial motto of “Don’t be evil” when they are clearly happy to be a little evil. I hate it that they’re two-faced, because I can’t trust people that are two-faced.

So now, if you’ve got a little time to listen to me rant, here’s why I stopped trusting Google:

Privacy

1. Google CEO Eric Schmidt dismisses privacy

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” said Eric Schmidt.

After recently reading Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother, I’ve got a new appreciation of the importance of privacy and it makes me very concerned that the company that handles my email, calendar, search and more seems so unconcerned about privacy.

I highly encourage reading EFF’s editorial on this: Google CEO Eric Schmidt Dismisses the Importance of Privacy. Here’s a great quote:

Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power.

2. So many privacy “blunders”.. maybe they’re intentional?

Google does not have a good track record when it comes to handling our private information:

• Molly Wood: Google Buzz privacy
• Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads
• BBC: Google rapped over privacy by 10 nations
  

In the last link, a watchdog group sent an open letter to Google. Here’s a quote from the letter:

Launching a product in ‘beta’ form is not a substitute for ensuring that new services comply with fair information principles before they are introduced

Business Practices

Google was probably my 2nd favourite company after Apple. However, I began to lose my adoration of them once they started competing directly with Apple in the phone space.

3. Google copies iPhone design

Google announced their Android project a long time ago. At that time Eric Schmidt was a member of the Apple board. After Apple introduced the iPhone, Google changed it’s direction for Android.

According to a former Apple employee, the day that the Apple-Google relationship started to crumble was the introduction of the T-Mobile G1. According to him, Steve Jobs and Apple Mobile Software VP Scott Forstall had only seen Android prototypes that looked like Blackberries. The new form factor was “way too similar to the iPhone for Jobs’ tastes”.

Sure, there’s no direct evidence of Google stealing Apple’s ideas, but I think it’s pretty obvious. Google has terrible design sense, and their phone OS suddenly gets lots of similar features to the iPhone. All the while, they’re taking potshots at Apple.

4. Google sells internet users out under pretense of ‘better internet’

Google and Verizon put together a proposal that they want the US Congress to ratify that would split the internet into the “public internet” and “better internets”. This would open the door to ISPs being able to charge you more money for premium content and services on the “better internets”.

On principle I hate the idea of a tiered internet. It should be open for everyone. But what really gets me is Google’s 180-degree turn of their stance on this tiered internet (net neutrality issue). Ars Technica put together a great paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse.

Also read:

• How the Google/Verizon proposal could kill the internet in 5 years
• Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

Stop Being Two-Faced

Ultimately what I have come to realise is that Google is just a super two-faced company. Like MG Siegler says, “Google, Just Cut The BS And Give The Gordon Gekko Speech Already“. Seriously.

Google, you were one of the good guys (or at least so I thought). I don’t mind you wanting to make money. I want you to make money so you can continue providing us great products.

But please don’t pretend to be the goody-two-shoes with your “Don’t be evil” mantra and then turn around and stab us in the back later. Because when you do that, people who don’t know better fall into your trap, and along the way you spoil what’s important to geeks like me.

And that’s why I’m so disappointed, and I can’t trust Google any more.

Update: Another article from TechCrunch that captures what I’m feeling: Google Is Anakin, Verizon Is The Emperor, And The Dark Side Is Winning

Related posts:

1. Google busses
2. Google phone
3. Official Google Reader Blog: Brand new Google Reader for iPhone

2010 kicked off with a very interesting high-stakes drama unfolding between Google and China. The situation has now blown up and got the US government involved. Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech on Internet Freedom which basically outlined a new foreign policy for USA and extended it to the internet.

In a nutshell, the US wants to help ensure the freedom of the internet to everyone, all over the world, especially in countries like Iran and China. Erick Schonfeld in Techcrunch says it best:

Apparently, it is now the U.S. government’s foreign policy to protect and promote these freedoms throughout the information “commons” which extend beyond our physical borders.  It is also U.S. foreign policy to encourage corporations, particularly those in the technology industry, to protect these freedoms.

I’d highly encourage reading the Techcrunch article which does a great job of explaining Clinton’s speech – Hillary Clinton Extends Foreign Policy To The Internet And Wants Your Help. For background on how this all came about, check out CNET News’ roundup (Google’s challenge in China), especially this video that summarises everything - Video: China’s attack on Google explained.

My Thoughts

I’m really not a fan of politics and international relations. However this seems like a really big development that may impact the internet throughout the world, and not just in China and USA.

This also smacks of USA being the world’s sherrif, but I ask myself who else could or would even try to protect the internet. And on the other hand is China – the world’s largest country and possibly the most powerful – is censoring the media and the internet like nobody’s business. If our silly politicians here try to censor the internet we would be up in arms right?

I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I definitely don’t want the internet to be censored or for there to be a Chinese internet and an English internet. What do you think?

Photo Credit: Flickr/ U.S. State Dept

Related posts:

1. Make Internet TV