Slashdot Mirror
Ashcroft v. Registrars on Domain Property Status
pbuxton writes "Here's a CNN story about the confiscation of domain names by law enforcement. An interesting dilemma noted in the story is that a domain name is either a mere service, which would let Verisign, et al., off the legal hook for mismanagement, or it is property which can be siezed by police and judges." This story mentions (and adds some perspective) to the recent seizure of ISOnews.com.
The whole concept behind property seizures is a little disturbing. It is the complete removal of due process to confiscate and sell for profit all of the offender's drug-loot before the trial has even begun.
This is the only crime where such an action is permitted, and it is wrong.
I have been pwned because my
It looks like there'll be negative fallout whatever the decision on this one. Either way, some bad things will have to be dealt with...But, to be more of a glass-is-half-full optimistic type, at least it will clarify the status of domain names, and drag them out of the legal limbo in which they currently reside. Better to know where you stand, right?
While it has been interesting to have all these legal and technological arguments (and it certainly provided the Slashdot crowd with many entertaining articles the domain names have been something of a Schrödinger's cat of the internet -- now the box is being opened.
Of course, just because the issue gets decided in the US doesn't mean that any conclusions reached will necessarily become international law.
i think the question here is, if the government can seize your domains from you, does that mean that you then OWN the domains?
verisign and other registrars have argued that you are just paying them for their services; some other registrars (gandi.net?) have written in the contract that YOU own the domain, and they merely provide services for you. (why anyone stays with verisign after their years of shitty service and support, i'll never understand.)
If the cops seized a domain, isn't that evidence? And if it is, wouldn't the cops using it be guilty of tampering with evidence? I doubt cops seize cars and boats from drug dealers and runners and start using them immediately. Don't they have to wait until AFTER the case goes through court? This smacks of unreasonable seizure.
But Ashcroft scares me.
Four more years of Ashcroft will see the U.S. Constitution a historical curiosity. "Your papers, citizen!"
And this is why I'm voting for the Democratic candidate for President in 2004 -- whomever that candidate is. Dump Ashcroft.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Personally I feel that Ashcroft would love to test that envelope.
On the otherhand this does present a case for placing a real value on domain names as company assets.
More troublesome would be to confiscate domains like http://whitehouse.org and gwbush.com which has been critical of the present monarchy. Allege a 'drug' or 'terrorism' charge and seize the domain pending outcome of the trial. This would allow them to shut down that site without looking like they were attacking the FIRST AMENDMENT.
The regular cops do this all the time with assets like cars and land. Local Governments even use that to aid in their finances. Budgeting against predicted seizure quotas Sure they will give back it's 'Value' years later after a civil suit which is even more longer. Or let it 'expire'
If this happens expect Whitehouse.org to be seized under eminent domain.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Yep if you own it they can seize it. Otherwise it is simply a service they can wiretap but they have to stop your business or arrest you some other way.
For instance, who ever heard of the government 'seizing' your phone number? How about 'seizing' your address?
Well that's where you can make a comparison... is an internet address more like a land address or a phone number? If land then it's property, if just a phone number then it's not... or is it?
With the new legislation being proposed about phone numbers which stay with you regardless of your service, this becomes more interesting...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I won't join in railing against "the government" because I've spent a fair amount of time working for the feds and respect many of the career investigators and prosecutors who bust folks 99% of us would want put away anyway. Some of the best talent in the country works for DOJ, for example; these jobs are coveted despite paying half that of private practice. But with great power comes great responsibility; thank goodness for defense attorneys and civil liberties organization.
Asset forfeiture -- assuming here a domain is an asset -- has been going on for centuries and now practically became a profit center for some law enforcement organizations. It steps from an ancient concept that something used in the commission of a crime is "soiled" and is thus forfeited to the state. (This shouldn't be confused as someone does above with contraband such as illegal drugs, which are always seized and generally have no market value; contraband is by definition illegal to possess.) It doesn't matter whether the value of the item is proportional to the offense or whether the owner has the slightest blame, as with a couple that lost their car after the husband performed received oral sex from a prostitute in it. The lawsuit was brought by the innocent spouse to recover her portion of the car's value. She lost!
Extraordinary cases of forfeiture abuse abound, such as a woman who lost her house because her son grew some pot in the backyard without her knowledge or even her negligence. Yes, asset forfeiture standing alone is frightening enough and has needed reining in for at least a decade. But no one complains too much when it's drug dealers (gasp) getting shafted.
The choices local federal prosecutors make are influenced heavily by what comes out of Washington. If AG Ashcroft sets a priority, the various offices must follow. Ashcroft has set what I'd describe as a "scorched earth" policy to take law enforcement powers to the max in pursuit of specific political objectives. The AG has gone so far as to requiring prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases where they had decided otherwise, reversing practice of many years to respect the prosecutors on the scene, and of offices in non-death penalty states such as Mass to respect the state's practice. Whatever my feelings about the death penlty, I'm concerned by such micromanagement by a central authority that just can't possibly evaluate every case in sufficient detail for this sort of decision.
My point is not to underestimate the power of a few political appointees. What you're reading in this case stems from a philosophy do different from the motivations behind the oddly named Patriot Act, domestic spying, and who knows what else we won't learn about until Congressional hearings some day.
With regard to the present case, whether a domain name is property is not half as disturbing an issue as the possibility the government might use them as a surreptitious vehicle for gathering evidence. As for whether it is property, the answer must be yes -- ask amazon.com if they'd like to change their URL. The conventional is that a domain name is renewable forever and can't be transferred without consent or misconductg of the owner; I think the courts will hold this is a property interest -- subject to forfeiture, naturally.
I was disappointed. Knowing that some ex-h@x0rs work for DoJ, I was expecting to find the following at the isonews.com website:
m3ss w1f d@ b3st, d13 l1k3 th3 r3st! d0j 0wnz u!
sp3c1@l gr33ts t0 0ur l33t h@x0r fr13ndz:
g33 duby00
d3p@rtm3nt 0f d3f3nz3
s@dd@m, w3'r3 c0ming f0r u!
It was publicly announced that it was too late to allow an alternate on the ballot, but if Mel Carnahan won, his wife, Jean Carnahan, would be take his place. This action, in itself, was arguably illegal.
Well, it came to pass that Ashcroft lost by a very narrow margin, 49% to 50%. It turned out that the opposition used the courts to extend voting hours in the city of Saint Louis, giving the strongly Democratic area additional strength.
Yeah, the whole national election was screwed that year. But, because of this, President Bush, threw Ashcroft a bone in the form of AG. At the time, I thought it was a fair shake. I was leary of Ashcroft, but figured that he would make a good cop. 9/11 changed all of that.
If he had not been cheated out of his Senate seat, he would be barking, not biting. Enough said...