A lot of threads about rising use of encryption seem to have this fear - that it will be used against us at some point, and I'd really like to understand where this fear comes from
Even taking a recent example of Parler; as far as I know it had HTTPS support and the corresponding X.509 cert was never revoked - instead hosting and I think the domain was terminated
At least with the way things are now there's no ground truth. Every AS has it's own perception of the routing table and the ability to act on it. That's the way it should be. Securing BGP means less security because there is no global consensus even implied in the protocol. Securing BGP means centralizing BGP, not security.
But Gaddafi was already in control of all Libyan ISPs and the .ly ccTLD. Why would DNSSEC have made his job any easier?
Also, surely Facebook was more instrumental in the Arab Spring than bit.ly was.[0] If anything, the lack of DNSSEC made it easier for Gaddafi to spoof DNS results for facebook.com and other sites.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...
At first I thought it was just an extended bit, like the whole Cody Johnston "teleporting boars" thing [0]
But I don't think it can be, I think you're serious and er, that's not great basically. Maybe take a few minutes to think about it more clearly, discuss it with somebody you trust, and see if you can't figure out where you went wrong.
[0] https://twitter.com/drmistercody/status/1046558632878399489
I would also point out that the big authorities handing out the certification for this can also just revoke your IP block instead. You could still announce the block but since you're not longer in legitimate ownership of the IP block, it's likely that you'll quickly be blocked from announcing it.
This is such a naive way of looking at things. First a trap is built. Then you wait. Years. Only when the trap is filled to the brim does it snap shut. Many examples of that pattern.