Members of Congress Demand Answers for the Unjust Domain Name Seizures

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/members-congress-demand-answers-homeland-securitys-unjust-domain-name-seizures

by mtgx • 14 years ago

169 24 14 years ago

jballanc• 14 years ago

There's a well known technique used by cops (relayed to me by a handful of retired NYC cops that worked security at a former job): you let the small time offenders go, so that they are more willing to help you with the big problems down the line.

One cop explained it like this: "We'd find guys smoking dope on their stoop, say hello, and just keep walking," he told me. "But we'd remember their names and faces. Then, when there was a murder or rape in the neighborhood, we would drive around, pick them up, and say 'Remember when you were smoking dope and we didn't say anything? Well, now we need you to repay the favor. Give me some names...'"

In one sense, it was a way to coerce inside intelligence contacts. In another sense, it was cops recognizing that in a city like NYC, there are bigger problems than someone smoking pot on their doorstep.

Now the internet is the city, and these cops are arresting every jaywalker and litterer they can find. Somehow, I doubt it will turn out well in the long run...

JonLim• 14 years ago

Well, when the cops are pushed by big industry corporations to heed their every beckon and call, it's not surprising that they shoot first and ask questions later.

It seems to be encouraged.

fffggg• 14 years ago

It's much, much worse than what you describe. They are seizing domains based on the preference of a private entity. There is no allegation of criminal infringement against dajaz1.com -- not even a little bit.

This is not an issue of harassing minor offenders, this is an issue of harassing those who have not offended in the slightest. Who are guilty of nothing more than saying something (in the form of links) which the RIAA does not wish to hear.

GFischer• 14 years ago

I remember having heard about dajaz, yes.

Rojadirecta is an interesting case, in that they were infringing on copyright, but they were found legal in Spain (different legislation), so the U.S. government seized the .com and .org anyways.

001sky2• 14 years ago

Rules designed to be broken also has the effect you describe. When everyone breaks the law daily in some [trivial] way, selective enforcement is enabled. If its [non-trivial], presumably its closer to black mail.

lubujackson• 14 years ago

It's more like they locked the doors and put police tape over someone's home for a year because a neighbor reported smelling pot nearby. No trial, no crime, and not even initiated by the police.

Bill_Dimm• 14 years ago

So, three members of Congress did the right thing, and the rest probably don't know what a domain name is.

Seriously, though, this is a step in the right direction and the three authors of that letter are to be commended. Our country seems to have forgotten the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

TallGuyShort• 14 years ago

And all 3 of them are very familiar names from the SOPA opposition...

001sky2• 14 years ago

Intangible "property" is Non-exclusive. The idea that it can be "stolen" is hilarious[1]. "Oh, I'm being infringed...call 911 and blow the doors off the house???" WTF. Arguably, amongst the strongest cases for copyright is that it protects the integrity of free speech, by managing how other people treat your work. Which is a bit Ironic in the cases here, where we are trampling over free speech to protect strictly monetary interests.

Edit:

[1] In a logical way, not a ha-ha sort. If you have rights, they are still your rights. The rights are your economic asset. Your rights have not been stolen. This raises the crux of the matter: the enforcement of your rights. In particular, the cost. So as a society, we need to ask ourselves who pays for all of this? "Damaging" the economic value of your rights is a problem if the cost of enforcement is high.

Shank• 14 years ago

It's definitely refreshing to see someone speaking out against blatant abuse of power by Homeland Security on these effective takeovers with no due process.

dreamdu5t• 14 years ago

If it was an illegal seizure than the victim should sue. That's the only way to make change here.

dangrossman• 14 years ago

You generally can't sue the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unite...

sp332• 14 years ago

Sovereign immunity is waived in some situations. Tresspass (during execution of a search) is often sue-able. Some courts as well as some members of congress support waiving it for improper seizures as well but it's less clear.

DanielBMarkham• 14 years ago

It used to be that if you wanted to corrupt your government so that you could gain a business advantage, it took a while. You met some politicians, you made some donations, you "entertained" folks. Legislation was introduced. It might take several tries before it was passed.

What I see now is that the system has granted itself so much administrative discretion that you can use government as a direct agent in trying to kill your competitors. The threshold for getting the big stick of the government out and whacking your competition is so low that you're presented with multiple choices: go for their domain name. Find a violation of the thousands of various codes they must comply with. Use your patents to start a patent war. And so on.

The beauty of this way of doing things is that the more you either screw somebody else over or get screwed over, the more you end up doing all the corruption activity that you used to have to do on the front end -- but this time it's to be left alone. So in this case we have people pleading with their Congressmen to try to get the system to work correctly. We've switched from corrupting a somewhat honest system for your own purposes to paying off a somewhat corrupt system in order to be left alone. Based on this, I predict political campaigns will continue to draw exponentially more money as things progress.

Interesting times to live in. We obviously need a secure, private, P2P domain name system.

ohashi• 14 years ago

.onion addresses exist on tor.

JeremyBanks• 14 years ago

Among human-readable adresses, .bit/NameCoin could be better but it isn't too bad. Something like half of all BitCoin miners are also part of the NameCoin network now, so it's more secure than you'd imagine given its actual adoption.

greenyoda• 14 years ago

"We obviously need a secure, private, P2P domain name system."

We obviously need the government to respect the laws and the Constitution. Technological fixes are not the solution to corrupt government. If the government can't seize someone's domain, they can still seize their assets (as in the Megaupload case).

joe_the_user• 14 years ago

We need to get the government to respect our rights and the Constitution and we need to make it hard for the government to violate our rights. The two aspects go together. Much as one might like this just to be about convincing politicians and bureaucrats to do the right thing, making it harder for these politicians and bureaucrats to do the wrong thing needs to be part of the process. Oddly enough, I think the framers of the constitution understood this.

And Megaupload had the technical problem of a single point of failure. Peer-to-peer is more robust - it still can be shutdown too but it's still worthwhile to make things hard for would-be censors.

antidoh• 14 years ago

Article says the material was legal, and that the govt was delaying while it waited on the RIAA to conclude its investigation.

A proper investigation prior to seizure would have uncovered this, and a self-respecting prosecutor or investigator would not have gone forward with seizure after learning that there was no violation.

This is what due process is for, to prevent injustices resulting from vigilantism, whether by citizens or governments.

This kind of thing makes us look like a banana republic. How fortunate that we don't have to send troops outside the country to prop ourselves up; we're already here.

ten_fingers2• 14 years ago

But, but, but, just think of the progress! How much progress we've made! I mean, in Germany in the 1930s, when one newspaper wanted another newspaper shutdown, the solution was Brown Shirts with clubs! Since the police leadership was all Nazi, the police looked away.

Crude! SO crude! Now we have progress! A MUCH better way!!!

Just call your local campaign bundler, pay the price, and then get fast, effective action via the DoJ, DHS, FBI, etc.! Progress!!!

ten_fingers2• 14 years ago

I hope most of this post is wildly wrong. To decide is for now heavily a judgment call. However, it may be crucial that we decide quite soon. In case of doubt, for something like domain name seizures, there is a two word solution -- 'due process'. More generally there is a one word solution -- 'vote'.

Yes, a good candidate for the most important problem facing the US and civilization is the citizens having too little information to monitor their government as well as is crucial. The good news is that we are now at the beginnings of by far the best solution so far in history -- the free and open Internet.

We're beginning to understand: For the most important players and purposes, PIPA and SOPA were actually not about 'protecting content'. Instead PIPA and SOPA were to be some new laws that could be selectively enforced to build a political machine and get power. So, if make your campaign contributions "on time", then you are free to do business. Else, the FBI may knock down your door, trash your offices, and take your computers.

PIPA and SOPA are just small potatoes: So, make your campaign contributions on time, and continue to operate your coal fired electric generating plant. Else the EPA may shut you down. In recent years coal has been the source of about 49% of US electric power. So, the EPA is a means of a shakedown of essentially all of the US energy industry.

Look, to the important players and purposes, reducing CO2 emissions to stop 'global warming' is just an excuse to execute a shakedown and build a political machine and get power. Those players care about 'climate change', 'global warming', 'rising sea levels', 'more frequent hurricanes', etc. less than a spit to windward.

We've already seen the shakedown of the Internet. The "National Broadband Plan" would give more such power over the Internet for more shakedowns and power.

Having the DHS run 'Internet security' would be another case -- more opportunities for shakedowns, building a political machine, and getting power.

Then there's the takeover and shakedown opportunities of 17% of the US economy, i.e., all of US health care. Believe me, to the important players and purposes, health care is just an excuse.

Then with control over all of US health care, essentially dictatorial control directly by appointed bureaucrats in the Executive Branch, unionize the 21 million health care workers and have them as a source of 'Brown Shirts'. Did I mention, it's not about health care. Instead it's about building a political machine and getting power.

Then there's the same for transportation, i.e., play nice and get help with your hybrid electric car project to try to satisfy the 50 MPG standard; not play nice and go broke.

Also if go broke but play nice, then get a bailout like GM did and, presto, have the US Treasury holding some of your preferred stock with someone appointed by the Executive Branch on your Board. Play nice and some 'stimulus' money can go to local governments to buy your cars, and now you have money enough to pay your unions what they want. Not play nice and you're out'a business.

Besides, another proposal is much more in passenger trains instead of private cars and, thus, more Federal Government control and more opportunities for shakedowns, political machine building, and power.

Another proposal is to do for all of US manufacturing what was done for GM -- under the control of the Executive Branch.

Look, the real objectives are not to do good things about energy, health care, finance, manufacturing, communications, transportation, the environment, or the economy, all of which are being used just as excuses. Instead, there are other objectives. And the step now is toward just one word, power, based on essentially a political machine based on new laws, regulations and, then, selective enforcement, shakedowns, payoffs, and kickbacks.

Then for the real objectives, that subject needs a revolution, and a standard prerequisite is a 'rotten door' so that the revolution is kicking in the rotten door. So, on the way to revolution, work to make the door rotten. So, the goal for now is not to make things better but to make them worse.

Then with the power of a political machine and a rotten door, kick in the rotten door and have the revolution.

What will be the goals of the revolution? We have to guess, but we have a lot of hints.

Look, guys, the risk is not just to your domain name.

But there is a solution: Become informed and, then, just one word. May I have the envelope, please (drum roll): Yes, here it is, "vote".

smartkids• 14 years ago

Are domain names overrated?

If I understand the reasoning correctly, someone who really wanted to access whatever is at "dajaz1.com" would not be willing to type 108.162.192.76. It is a non-starter.

For example, if an announcement was posted on the web that some great music was at 108.162.192.76, giving users a link that is an IP address would not be sufficient to allow people to access the site? While, on the contrary, if it was posted on the web that some great music was at "dajaz1.com" then that would be different. How? Why? Facts, not speculation.

I know there are theories about how people evaluate domain names in search results. But how about IP addresses? And what if the context is not a SERP?

"dajaz1" as a string really tells me nothing. I could make some assumptions based on the string if it was somehow descriptive, but then anyone could be controlling that domain name. It might be a copyright infringer, it might be DHS, it could be anyone. Even if the string was "music.com". Again, facts not just assumptions.

And if I'm diligent and look up the whois record and it's privacy protected, then what?

The truth is, I could probably get a better idea of who is running the site just by the IP address and using rDNS and IP registry lookups.

The point I want to make is that "domain names", for sites that have decent content, might be overrated. The key word is "content".

If the content is good enough for people to _keep coming back_ to the site (i.e. the site is not just looking to fool people once with the lure of false content based on a descriptive domain name), then users will do what they have to do to access the content. Whether it's clicking on a link that is an IP address, bookmarking it, or even writing it down. Writing down a 4-12 digit number!? Who would do such a crazy labour-intensive thing? A user who wants decent content, that's who.

If this use of IP's becomes infeasible because the site wants to play constant musical chairs with IP addresses without giving its users advance notice (this is relatively rare in my experiments but not unheard of), then it's probably a good thing. Because users will be alerted that the site is jumping from IP to IP. There may be legitmate reasons for it but it's also what copyright infringers and other criminals typically do.

Members of Congress Demand Answers for the Unjust Domain Name Seizures

Related Stories