Scary stuff. WikiLeaks has provided some insight into this with some examples below.
From: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104331The objective of the session is to put us in the best position possible to make a decision as to whether we should proceed to the next steps in seeking site blocking in the US.
The first step is a pre-phase in which we will get prepared and try to create a more favorable environment for site blocking. This would involve multiple parallel tracks. Without attempting to be exhaustive, those tracks include: Outreach to respected technologists to begin to forge agreement on technical facts and site blocking efficacy — and, where possible, garner policy support for site blocking (or at least dampen opposition to it). Continued research and record building on the effectiveness of site blocking.
Outreach to academics, think tanks and other third parties to foster the publication of research papers, white papers and other articles that tell the positive story of site blocking: e.g., it is commonplace around the world and working smoothly; it has not broken the internet; it is not incompatible with DNSSEC; it is effective; legitimate sites/content have not been blocked; etc.
Building the record (and telling the story) that the sorts of sites at issue are dangerous. It is not just copyright infringement. Kids are one-click away from identity theft, graphic porn, malware, etc. Parent groups, consumer protection groups and other third parties can be cultivated to speak out against such predatory sites. Telling the positive story of the widespread availability of legitimate content. At the right time, we would quietly approach ISPs with which we have good relationships and which we believe might consider cooperating with us to test US site blocking. If any US ISPs are prepared to cooperate — and we can create a track record of effective site blocking in the US — the environment for US site blocking more broadly will become significantly more favorable. We do not need to decide in advance how to proceed if no US ISP is prepared to work with us cooperatively. We recommend that we cross that bridge only if and when we need to, in context of the landscape we face at that point in time.
From: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/105049US Site-Blocking: We can review the four supplemental analyses that have been circulated. Ultimately, we need to decide whether we want to move forward with a site-blocking strategy and, if so, what the next steps should be. Search “Asks”: A 2013 exercise resulted in a list of six antipiracy asks for search engines. At the GSM, there was consensus that the GCs should attempt to reduce the list to one or two principal asks that we can use in all public advocacy and negotiation venues. For your reference, here are the six asks from the 2013 process: Promote authorized sites. Search engines should obtain and use information from authoritative sources on which sites have been authorized to provide copyrighted content, and use that information to prioritize legitimate sites in rankings for search. De-prioritize rogue sites. Search engines should make meaningful changes to algorithms to ensure that results from infringing sites do not appear on the first pages of search results and to promote the elevation of legitimate sites to take their place. De-index rogue sites.
