Jail Time for Misleading Domain Names

Bootsy Collins writes "The Miami Herald is running a story on the first-ever prison sentencing (and, for that matter, prosecution and conviction) under the Federal Truth in Domain Names Act. This act, combined into the larger Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003, made it a violation of U.S. Federal law to use a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive someone into viewing obscene material -- larger penalties if attempting to so mislead minors, but up to two years even if adults are the object. In the case in question, a man was convicted for registering thousands of domain names which were close misspellings of popular web sites for kids. Attempting to surf to those sites would redirect to a site entitled 'Dorm Sex Party.' Before being arrested, the convicted typosquatter made about a million dollars for the referrals." He's been on Slashdot before.

Comments

Conflicting Feelings

[Elpacoloco]

On one hand, typing a URL and getting a "BUY THIS PAGE" page annoys the bejesus out of me.

On the other hand, going to jail for setting up a website seems....excessive. Surely just taking it down and a fine would be enough?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[WildBeast]

Deserves what? 3 years in prison? I'm all for punishing him with a big fine but prison?
After 3 years in jail, he'll actually become a criminal once he's out.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, going to jail for setting up a website seems....excessive. Surely just taking it down and a fine would be enough?

Definitely. And I have more commentary at my blog sites, slapdot.org, smashdot.org, slashfot.org, skashdot.org and slashdot.dot.org

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[36526542DD]

Guess what, my 5 year old daughter uses the computer and takes herself to www.disney.com and www.barbie.com. It would be a very easy thing for her to get an eye full.

And 5,500 domains?!?

This guy got exactly what he deserved, assuming he got 3 years in jails and a 1 million dollar fine so there is no money waiting for him when he gets out.

This man is a scum sucking pig that preyed on little childrens mistakes to give himself an easy life.

Let's do the math:

5,500 domains, say 10 people per day (quite conservative), for a year. So this guy makes 20,075,000 people look at p0rn (daughters, mothers, grandmothers), with no way of using the back button or getting out of it, and prison time is excessive?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[timeOday]

Let's see if he actually ends up serving 3 years. Maybe the judge had in mind that a 3 year sentence would be more like 1 or 1.5 after parole. A financial penalty alone isn't much of a penalty if he made all his money from the crime.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[WildBeast]

They should've fined him for a million dollars instead of throwing him in jail, no doubt.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Durandal64]

He didn't hurt anyone. He offended the religious, prudish sensibilities of some parents. Did he do anything to deserve 3 years of jail time? Certainly not. Whether or not he should be punished for putting whatever material he wants on his legally purchased domain name is debatable, but the guy doesn't deserve jail time. That's just overkill. With drug offenders flooding the prison systems for hurting no one but themselves, we don't need domain name offenders in there as well. America needs to start lightening up with its regard toward sex. These children will not be scarred for life, nor will they become criminals or low-lifes just because they say a guy cumming on a woman's tits. Wake up to reality.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[addaon]

What has our justice system come to when a valid reason for an outrageous sentence is "that's okay, we don't enforce sentences anyway"?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Bitsy Boffin]

A) He tricked people into looking at porn. ooh ahh. Big woop, it hasn't scarred them for life, it didn't make them blind, no more than somebody accidentaly clicking on a goatse link.

B) All that you accomplish by putting him in prison is forcing him to associate with hard criminals, who kill, mame, rob and rape. How exactly is that in any way a good thing for his 'correction'?

The most harsh thing that should even be considered for this guy is is a fine and home detention with no computer access for some period. But really... he made people look at porn, what's the big deal?!

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Cincinnatus1984]

He really is going to understand the phrase "Federal Bang Me in the A$$ Prison"

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[afidel]

It's the very fact that it was a FELONY to register some domain names. He didn't steal anything, he didn't attack anyone, he didn't kill anyone, etc. I think it's pretty disgusting that he targeted childrens websites but does it rise to the level of a felony?? I mean supplying alcohol to a minor is only a misdemenor in most jurisdictions, so showing a child a picture is somehow worse then supplying them with poison? (note: I don't agree with the drinking age restrictions in the U.S. just using this as an example)

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[black mariah]

You don't have to be religious OR prudish to not want your 4 year old running into a hardcore porn site. "Five midgets, spanking a man... covered in Thousand Island dressing. Is that making love?"

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[black mariah]

Not everyone that lets their kids do something unattended is dropping their responsibilities. You can't hover over your child day and night to make sure they don't do something you don't like.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[bckrispi]

Nope, there is no such thing as Parole in the Federal Prison System. He can get time off for good behavior, but for a 3 year sentence, he won't get more than 4 months shaved off.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[harlows_monkeys]

He didn't hurt anyone. He offended the religious, prudish sensibilities of some parents. Did he do anything to deserve 3 years of jail time? Certainly not

What is your qualification to make that statement? Are you an expert in child development?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[LordK3nn3th]

If you want to shield them from sex, perhaps you should not have a computer, television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or any other connection to the outside world. You can also blindfold them and lock them in a dark room with their hands tied behind the back. It's for the best-- sex is a horrible, hideous thing. If you see it, run the other way, it's a monster that will consume you.

What is your scientific evidence that suggests porn will HARM kids in the slightest?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[36526542DD]

You don't have young daughters, do you?

Have you forgotten the whole super bowl half-time fiasco with Janet Jackson? She flashes her boob for 1/2 a second and 100,000's of parents complain the next day.

But it's OK if some jerk hijacks your daughter on the internet and sends her to site after site of some of the nastiest p0rn on the net, because he has the right to earn a quick buck.

What happened to the rights of parents to protect their children? And my motives in wanting to protect my daughters are none of your business. It is my family, and my stewardship, and I take it seriously.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Have Blue]

"Attempted murder! Now what is that, really! Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?"

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Fred IV]

You don't have to be religious OR prudish to not want your 4 year old running into a hardcore porn site. "Five midgets, spanking a man... covered in Thousand Island dressing.

That sounds disgusting. I'd love to see it. Link please? And could I get that with Blue Cheese dressing instead? And big red straps?

FIV

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[nacturation]

Don't forget the 1 count of child porn he pleaded guilty to. It's not just the 49 counts of redirect sites he was sentenced for.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[ZoneGray]

If his scam had really revolved around intentionally misleading children to porn sites, I doubt he could have made much money at it. What's he gonna do, get rich off their lunch money? Besides, they show each other their stuff for that.

It sounds like a typical prosecutor's embellishment. Not to defend the guy, it's just that what a prosecutor says after a conviction isn't subject to rules of evidence or rebuttal, and they like to puff their accomplishments. So, when both kids and adults made typos and got sent to the front door of a porn site, it was transformed into "targeting pornography at children" through the miracle of politics.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[krumms]

These children will not be scarred for life, nor will they become criminals or low-lifes just because they say a guy cumming on a woman's tits. Wake up to reality.

heart ... beating faster ...... hormones ... raging ... thought of tits ... filling mind ... urge to commit crime ... rising ... RIIIISING!

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Aardpig]

My wife and I are stricter than most (even in Utah, where we live). We don't even like our children (daughters: 5, 3, 1) to watch Sponge Bob Square Pants and other cartoons like it. We both enjoy watching and discussing cartoons and movies with them.

I'm guessing, from your comment about Utah, that you guys might be from the Mormon faith. Each to their own, I say -- I myself am a staunch atheist. But your comment about Sponge Bob caught me. A few years back, I was out in Africa (Ghana, to be specific), teaching high-school level physics to kids and young adults in a small village (with a UK organisation called VSO, similar to the US Peace Corps). I was meant to be there 2 years, but I quit after 7 months.

The reason why I quit ties in with Sponge Bob. I left Ghana early because my life was missing discourse and debate -- the stuff which makes us feel part of a community. But, surprisingly, the discourse I was lacking was not related to the big ideas such as politics, economics, science, etc. Although I had frequenct discussions on these topics with my local friends, I still felt that I was lonely out there.

It transpires that what I missed in Ghana, and why I decided to quit, was a longing for the trivia of the world I had grown up in -- what had happened that week in my favourite soaps, etc. I detest celebrity cultrue, but what I found in Ghana from interacting from my Engish (i.e., same-culture) friends is that celebrity culture, and other manifestations of trivia, is the lubricant on which much of Western -- and indeed, all -- civilization runs. That is what marked the cultural divide between me and my local friend Tommy -- not our debate about whether colonialism had benefitted Ghana or otherwise.

So, while I agree that I'd far rather my future children grew up on books rather than television, I would offer this advice: No matter how much weight you put on the intellectual advancement of your offspring, this will always be eclipsed by the weight that they attach to understanding, digging, grokking and being part of the growing-up of their generation.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[36526542DD]

And if she types in bisney.com instead of disney.com?

I never said I gave her unrestricted access. But I don't want it happening whether I'm sitting right there or not.

The guy was deliberately targeting childrens domain names (among others) and sending them to porn sites. Who else did he mean to send there? This is no different than standing in front of an elementary school handing out copies of hustler. You should plan on going to jail (as opposed to someone handing out porn on the strip in Vegas).

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[gujo-odori]

Spot-on. My niece is old enough at four that she could have blundered into such a site. At least my brother doesn't use IE, which provides some protection. My oldest will soon be using a computer (Linux, of course, for even more protection), and at least during the next three years, that scum won't be putting up any sites to try and trap them or others.

To all of the bleeding hearts whining about this three-year sentence, please get a clue. What he did was illegal, I'm certain he knew it was illegal when he did it, and he knew the risks. If he didn't want to go to prison, the time to think about that was *before* he did the crime, not after. It's like parenthood: the time to think about whether you want a kid is when your clothes are still on. If you don't, then keep 'em on.

My only problem with his sentence is the cost. His million dollars should be confiscated to pay for it. Otherwise, well, three years in prison are pretty expensive, and there are much cheaper alternatives: a rope, a single .40 S&W bullet, a jolt of high-voltage electricity...

AND - they all have a recidivism rate of zero.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is well taken, Mr. "LordK...."

The poster you replied to is just another prude, of which there are many in the US. And I am from the US, myself, though I
was taught by my enlightened parents ( correctly ) that prude attitudes toward sex are based in ignorance and fear.

Sex, even in weird forms, is one hell of a lot more civilized than
war.

It's *violence* that children most need to be shielded from, yet
they are bombarded by it daily, in the US, which is the most violent country in the world, based on a per capita murder rate.
Gee, I wonder if daily exposure to violence might have influenced any of this ?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[senzafine]

If you look for research on the effects of exposure to pornography at a young age - you'll answer your own question. Children aren't capable of seeing consequences for alot of their actions. And there is actually alot of evidence that shows that exposure to pornography at a young age tremendously increases the chance for addiction to it at a later age.

Shielding kids from pornography isn't the same as shielding them from sex. Pornography != sex.

That said...isn't shielding young kids from pornography similar to shielding them from drugs and alcohol?

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Aardpig]

You do realize that statement somewhat undermines the point of your sig? It is very difficult for Americans to emigrate to India, at the very least for protectionist if not more emotional reasons, the equivalent of an Indian "green card" is far more rare than the American one.

You have got to understand the difference between immmigration and what Germany refers to "gastarbiter" (guest worker). One is a right to settle permanently in a country and enjoy the fruits therof, the other is a limited permit to earn money, so long as it benefits said country -- but with the understanding that when things go tits-up, you get chucked out. The latter would adequately describe the fate of an Indian (or Pakistani, or Khazak, or Turkmen, or whatnot) H1 visa holder.

My discourse, however, is getting away from the fundamental point, which is this: if Indians appear to be stealing jobs from America, then let's not start commenting how black, or how ignorant, or how bad at programming the Indians are (at least, through our own prejudices eyes). Indeed, to do such would be racist. Instead, let's ask why all of these companies are outsourcing labour to India (or wherever), but at the same time offering none of the job protections that are enjoyed in the USA?

On a final note, as disclosure of my non-Indian yet pseudo-immigrant position: I am a J-1 (exchange) visitor to the USA. I am currently applying to get permanent residence (i.e., a green card) through my marriage to a very lovely US citizen. Ethnically, I am from Anglo-Irish stock.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[joto]

If you want to shield them from sex, perhaps you should not have a computer, television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or any other connection to the outside world. You can also blindfold them and lock them in a dark room with their hands tied behind the back. It's for the best-- sex is a horrible, hideous thing. If you see it, run the other way, it's a monster that will consume you.

Just like you want to shield your children from other things they are not mentally equipped to understand or handle yet, you should shield your children from porn.

While it's probably not wise to shield your children from knowing about sex after they have shown themselves too have an interest in it (which usually occurs long before puberty), it doesn't strike me as very smart to let them discover it through internet pornography either.

Let's face it, most internet pornography is to normal sex, as most horror movies is to experiencing a death in the family. Without the maturity and experience to separate fantasy from fiction, stuff like this can be damaging to children.

What is your scientific evidence that suggests porn will HARM kids in the slightest?

I doubt there is much, as this is a relatively new problem. The previous generation smuggled playboy (which is hardly comparable to most internet porn) under their mattresses. It's only in recent years that 5 year olds can see midgets pissing and shitting on women being unwillingly double-penetrated by a men with leather masks, and a dildo up her nose.

It's hardly a secret that kids that watch lots of movies intended for more mature audiences, on their own, without adult supervision, often becomes "cases" for the special teachers, school psychologists, etc...

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[corian]

Have you forgotten the whole super bowl half-time fiasco with Janet Jackson? She flashes her boob for 1/2 a second and 100,000's of parents complain the next day.

Yes, gosh, it's terrible for a young child to see a boob.

But it could be worse.

Imagine if the child were to...say...suck milk from the boob? Put his or her little mouth all over the nipple?

It's just obscene. The child would never recover. Might as well kill the kid and start all over again.

What happened to the rights of parents to protect their children?

It's only protecting your children when there is A DANGER. Children have bodies. Dangly bits are perfectly normal parts of bodies. Teaching kids that their own bodies are obscene or bad, that it could harm others to catch a glimse of such things... THAT is truly dangerous.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, he may be a criminal. You're a criminal for speeding, too, or not obeying other nonsense laws (not saying speed laws are nonsense).

3 years in the joint is a long time. There's nothing better to make a person a hardened criminal than putting them in prison, so all of the other even more hardened criminals can teach them a thing or two...

Nothing.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Lehk228]

make sure his cell mate knows about the KP conviction

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[cheekyboy]

This is a score of 5?

You know coorporates will inflate losses to get super tax breaks.

Infact, mitnik doing $1m damage, and coroporates claiming $5billion, to get $5b in tax refunds is more of a crime than mitnik, and those CEOs need to get banged up the ass, take their CEO lives away.

But you wont see any FBI raid a $100b companies CEO house and shove him in the pound in the ass prison and throw him in cells with real killers.

Yes, steal a loaf of bread, get pounded inthe ass, steal billions/trillions and sit back in your $12m mansion and army of lawyers and 'charity contributions' and you suddendly look like a nice guy.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Phroggy]

It's the very fact that it was a FELONY to register some domain names.

Sounds to me like registering the domain names wasn't the problem at all - the problem was that he deliberately attempted to redirect children to porn sites, and happened to use domain names he registered to do so. I don't see why there should be any controversy about this.

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[hc00jw]

I mean supplying alcohol to a minor is only a misdemenor in most jurisdictions, so showing a child a picture is somehow worse then supplying them with poison?

If you sell a children alcohol, they asked for it first. If they are browsing to a Disney web site, and end up on a porn site instead, that is defiantly not what they asked for!

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[Creep73]

People being light on criminals are a HUGE problem in the United States. We have a guy here who is attacking our children within their own home. This guy is entering our homes and showing our children pornographic material. He is making money off the suffering of our families and all you feel he deserves is a fine? We can't even calculate the damage this guy has done to children who have wandered on his redirects and all people can think of is fining him the amount he has made off the suffering of others. What type of punishment is that? If I rob a bank are you just going to fine me what I stole? Are you delusional enough to think that this will prevent me from robbing more banks? This guy is scum and needs to be removed from society and taught that such attacks are not acceptable and punishment will be severe! You can say I am overly harsh but I don't believe so. I think I am taking the threat seriously. Instead of thinking about the poor criminal I am thinking about the poor victims. I am thinking, "How can we prevent this from happening again?" People who defend this guy are no better than he is!

Re:Conflicting Feelings

[senzafine]

just as there's a difference between looking at pornography and making it

If you read what i said...exposure to pornography at a young age plays a very large role in "ingesting" it later on in life. I have yet to talk to anyone who claims that they are grateful for having been exposed to pornography at a young age...you?

finally...

[Savatte]

Maybe they will finally put some goat sex up at goatse.cx?

Re:finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

goatse.cx != goatsex
goatse = GOATSE
(G)uy
(O)pens
(A)ss
(T)o
(S)how
(E)ev eryone

goatse is thus perfectly appropriate.

I know this is bad.....

[Dr Reducto]

But i would do a coupl years in prison if I recieved a couple million dollars, as long as I got to keep it when i got out. I would just write a book while in jail, and chill out. I would also lift weights, so no one would try to make me their bitch.

Re:I know this is bad.....

[KingOfBLASH]

But i would do a coupl years in prison if I recieved a couple million dollars, as long as I got to keep it when i got out. I would just write a book while in jail, and chill out. I would also lift weights, so no one would try to make me their bitch.

Dude, you've got millions coming in from your illegal domain name scam. Leave the country. Sip espresso while watching the gorgeous parisian women walk by your cafe.

Re:I know this is bad.....

[rsborg]

Dude, you've got millions coming in from your illegal domain name scam. Leave the country. Sip espresso while watching the gorgeous parisian women walk by your cafe.

He's gonna have to go a bit farther than that. Like some country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Relevant portion of article:

Meanwhile, however, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently signed two low-publicity multilateral agreements with the European Union (EU) on June 25. Known as the Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance agreements, they purport to provide a coherent, unified framework for extradition between the United States and every state in the European Union, primarily for the purposes of facilitating "counterterrorism cooperation." These treaties received very little attention in the U.S. media, but they are by far the most extensive and far-reaching agreements of their kind to which the United States ever has bound itself.

He's not in jail for showing children porn

[Anonymous Coward]

He's in jail for taking one million dollars from the porn industry in exchange for directing people to their sites who have no credit cards and can't make them any money.

Re:He's not in jail for showing children porn

[unitron]

That's what I've been wondering about. According to an article over at The Register he got from ten to twenty-five cents from the porno sites for every re-direction. I realise that the more you make on one customer the more you can spend per potential customer but how many kids that mis-spell Disney or Teletubby or whatever just happen to have access to a credit card or checking account number and how many parents looking for something for their kids are going to decide to postpone that search so that they can buy access to materials they probably won't be sharing with those kids? If the last step is "Profit!" the next to last is a big ol' question mark.

I guess this means...

[UnixRevolution]

Whitehouse.com and goatse.cx are in big trouble.

Re:I guess this means...

[rumpledstiltskin]

probably yes on whitehouse.com, but goatse, I'd say no. I haven't read the actual USC on it yet, but I figure this guy got the book thrown at him because he was deliberately misleading children to porn sites. I mean, seriously, that's all kinds of wrong. The statute will probably be misapplied in the future, but at least they were smart enough to make the first prosecution under it an obvious open and shut case.
As for goatse, it's not exactly deliberately misleading people. any simpleton can see that there might be something untoward about it, or at the least, not have a preset expectation toward it.

Re:I guess this means...

[Aardpig]

Whitehouse.com and goatse.cx are in big trouble.

It's worth pointing out that Whitehouse was a leading publication in the UK Men's Jazz Mag genre way before the World-Wide Web became popular. Sheesh, I spent my early teens stealing coins from my Mum's purse to buy copies of Whitehouse; ah, the thrill of riding down to Southfields for my monthly Saturday-morning cheapie. with the wind blowing in my hair etc etc...

Therefore, I don't think the name whitehouse.org is in any way misleading. Indeed, I find whitehouse.gov far more misleading; it pretends to be the homepage of a wonderful country built on the principles of freedom and justice for all, but turns out to be a fetish site for big-government fascism and religious bigotry. The fuckers!

Re:I guess this means...

[sholden]

There are no goats, and those non-existant goats don't seem to be having sex.

For the goat-lovers amongst us the domain name probably caused them great mental anguish due to its misleading nature.

Re:I guess this means...

[Bootsy Collins]

The thing that worries me about the law is this: what constitutes "use"? What constitutes "using" a misleading domain name? What this guy did surely does. But what about posting a link in which you try to trick people into seeing the goatse man by using a yahoo.com redirect. Is that using a misleading domain name (yahoo.com) to manipulate someone into viewing obscene content? The law itself does not say "use = registering a domain name and setting up a website at". I don't have any problem with this guy getting prosecuted; but I worry that the law is so vague that half the trolls on /. are breaking Federal law.

Re:I guess this means...

[LostCluster]

In my opinion, the rightfull owner of whitehouse.gov should be the National Parks Service. The White House itself is a historical office and residental building operated by the government. It's a tourist attraction just as much as the Washington Monument is. It belongs to the American People just like the Capitol Building does. There are some things that the White House always does no matter who the president is, those events are run by the National Parks Service and really are nothing but national entertainment that our highest elected official, whomever he is, participates in.

The office of head of the executive branch certainly deservives a governemnt website, but that should be president.gov, or some other domain that makes it clear that what comes from the Office of the Preseident is important, but it is not necessarily the opinion of the entire government, and it certainly is never the opinion of the building itself.

The people who actually operate the White House rarely have much to say to the media. A "White House Spokesperson" usually is a term used for somebody who is speaking on behalf of the President and cabinet-level officals. They are people who work in the office space inside The White House, but they don't exactly work for the White House. There's a big difference between the owners of a building and the tenants of a building...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Jail time??

[MP3Chuck]

Well, hopefully he'll be able to redirect Bubba...

Domain name typ-O's and liknesses

[Mick Ohrberg]

It's about time the typosquatters are getting squeezed. I'm tired of getting shipped over to some obscure "search engine" site with 45 popups and popunders. (Thank the Maker for the popup blocker in the Googlebar!) However, I wonder how long it'll be until it goes over the end the other way - we've already seen the mikerowesoft.com story, and there's always whitehouse dot com (instead of whitehouse.gov).

Re:Domain name typ-O's and liknesses

[Ironica]

It's about time the typosquatters are getting squeezed. I'm tired of getting shipped over to some obscure "search engine" site with 45 popups and popunders.

Which has nothing to do with this story... this is about intentionally misleading people to view obscene material. As trashy as those X-10 ads may be, they're not actually obscene.

(Thank the Maker for the popup blocker in the Googlebar!)

Or for Mozilla, when you have the choice. (And for some reason, googlebar causes all sorts of hangs when I install it at work... on any machine. So, /sigh.)

Re:whitehouse.com

[Ossadagowah]

What's creepy about this is how people take offense to things that are not in and of themselves offensive, such as the word "niggardly".

How can you predict what someone will find offensive? And can you be fined for "offending" someone with content that you consider acceptable ?

Shameful

[Bob-o-Matic!]

It's just shameful how many people abuse the internet... Re-directs, pop-up ads, spam, retina-searing flash ads, and so forth-- my non-techie neighbors can barely stand to be online... until I installed Firefox for them.

Mucho Gracias to the kind folks who wrote the main apps and extensions for Mozilla and the like... people don't surf the web or use email only to be bludgeoned with it. Moz and family puts users back in control!

I really didn't intend to make a blatant ad for Mozilla, was just recalling recent trauma from using IE 5 on an unpatched Win2K machine, and I was merely trying to find a happy place...

Re:Shameful

[silentbozo]

Firefox is great. I've got half a dozen extensions loaded, and the search bar is more than enough justification to install it (I've got everything from Google, eBay, to Wikipedia, all in one click.) Not only that, but it's way faster than Mozilla, or even IE, for that matter. Being able to customize the interface is another cool feature - I've got three checkboxes at the top of the window that allow me to toggle JS, Cookies, and Images, on and off, without having to go through a labyrinth of menus. Oh, and did I mention tabbed browsing?

Now, if someone would please backport it MacOS classic, so I can run it on my ancient PowerPC machines (running MacOS 7.6.1, 8.5.1, 8.6, and various flavors of 9)...

OK, so...

[Guppy06]

When does this law apply to SiteFinder?

Re:OK, so...

[gnu-generation-one]

"When does this law apply to SiteFinder?"

When laws start applying to Verisign

Scumbags deserve it

[Heartz]

I have absolutely no problem if those sites were adult sites. My issue with these dudes is that they are delibrately TRICKING kids into viewing the porn.

Kudos to the authorities for clamping down on this dude.

I for one am glad

[pHatidic]

You have no idea how many times I try to type in hotmail.com and my fingers slip and hotmom.com comes out. Or even worse when I try to visit whitehouse.gov and mis-spell it as goatse.cx.

Re:I for one am glad

[El]

You have no idea how many times I try to type in hotmail.com and my fingers slip and hotmom.com comes out.

Consider yourself lucky you don't accidentally type hotmale.com instead!

Re:I for one am glad

[El]

It is amusing because now everybody with a hotmail address is going to feel compelled to spell it out -- "That's 'hotmail', H-O-T-M-A-I-L, _not_ H-O-T-M-A-L-E!" I've even been known to point out the difference on occaision when giving out my email address...

I appologize for the rude suprise, but I assumed everybody had learned from the goatse links to be wary about clicking on links, especially when at work... The question is, does this qualify as "typo squatting" or not?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

About time

[HeLLLight]

When my sisters kids come over and we go on to the net to look for Barbie's and the like; the amount of times something a little 9 year old shouldnt be seing is incredible. Thanks goodness someone is looking to combat this problem. Although I do question whether going to jail is in order. Making them take down the website and if the then keep re-affending THEN slap them with some jail time.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

we go on to the net to look for Barbie's and the like

It's a bad idea to show your sister's kids how to *search* the net. Obviously you have to search BEFORE they arrive and make some bookmarks. "google.com" is the last site you want the kids to know about.

Re:About time

[zmooc]

So exactly what things do qualify as things that a little 9 year old shouldnt be seing? Things that make dad feel embarassed when he has to explain it to them? Or is there also some kind of objective criterium for sending guys to jail?

I'm really surprised by the reactions here on /. as compared to the reactions I hear from my - dutch - friends that all consider it the next stupid hypocritical action by police state #1. Maybe you could explain to me what exactly it is that justifies such ridiculous attacks on freedom? Especially in the country that's always so hypocritically proud of its `freedom'?

Misleading domain names aren't the only problem

[symbolic]

The other day, a friend and I were using google to try and locate sites that had a demo of simant (actually, we were hoping for a free download, but that didn't happen). Using the terms "+simant+download", I was rather dismayed to see that the vast majority of results were PORN sites that used the term simant in their keywords. I'm all for freedom of the internet, but if you can't be responsible enough to be honest about what your site contains, you really don't deserve the freedom. What I saw was just plain pathetic, and I don't think I'd be against a law that forbid this kind of misleading characterization of content.

Re:Misleading domain names aren't the only problem

[addaon]

Okay, what's this hypothetical law you're supporting. "It is illegal to use a word that someone else may use, if they may not want to see your site"? Or is it "You cannot use a word on your site unless you have a well-considered topical essay on the subject indicated by that word"? Or is it "As the author of a site, you are responsible for how third party software decides to present your URL"? Please do clarify, I'm quite curious.

Re:Misleading domain names aren't the only problem

[addaon]

Okay. So you agree with him. What are you agreeing with? What possible law can you imagine that would provide any benefit at all, without totally destroying the web? Please, I do want to know.

Re:Misleading domain names aren't the only problem

[BoogieChile]

you want to to talk about fraudulent google searches; I'm looking for information on a dialup networking/RAS error 711, right? go to google, do a search on "Remote Access" "error 711" and the first result is for goto.mypc;

http://www.vaalit2003.com/error_711_remote_acces s_ connection_management.html

"Finally technology has evolved to the point that you no longer need to be sitting in front of a computer to control it. Now you can take complete control of your computer from a remote location with error. With our remote 711 error access software, control your PC from anywhere around the world.

It's so easy and fast, you'll wonder how it's even possible and you'll be glad management access connection 711 remote error you finally have Goto My PC. Set the access remote 711 connection error management up, follow the simple on screen directions, and you can be controlling all your computers from one central location in just minutes. When you download GotoMyPC, you can install it in a matter of minutes.

The sky and your imagination is the limit. View the screen and control the system of a computer located across the room, across town, or across the world with our revolutionary new 711 remote connection access error. The screen of your existing computer, virtually becomes another computer with this software. There is no limit to the range or uses of remote error 711."

Gee, that's really useful information. Now I know exactly what to put on my "never buy. ever." list

How on Earth do they come up with these acronyms??

[myowntrueself]

"Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003"

And the PATRIOT act as well...

Do they have some software that generates acronyms that also happen to be (seemingly) appropriate words??

Too light of a sentence

[Chatmag]

From the article: "Zuccarini admitted in court documents that one reason he preyed on websites popular among children was ''because children are more likely than adults to make spelling errors and to mis-type website addresses,'' prosecutors said.

If he had made the statement that he misspelled the domain names to attract adults, thats one thing, but in his case intention is everything. He should of received 30 years.

Re:Too light of a sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "Zuccarini admitted in court documents that one reason he preyed on websites popular among children was ''because children are more likely than adults to make spelling errors and to mis-type website addresses,'' prosecutors said.

If he had made the statement that he misspelled the domain names to attract adults, thats one thing, but in his case intention is everything. He should of received 30 years.

Clearly Mr. Zucchini is a fool. Adults are just as likely to make spelling and grammar errors as children nowadays.

Can I sue???

[Glowing Fish]

There is this one site called www.hornyteens.com , and after very careful research, I think some of those girls are actually probably in their early twenties, or late twenties. I want my money back.

Re:whitehouse.com

[Chatmag]

National Fruit Products in Winchester, Virginia (hometown of my Virginia office) is talking about buying the whitehouse.com domain name.

Re:whitehouse.com

[Goo.cc]

"And can you be fined for "offending" someone with content that you consider acceptable ?"

Probably, thanks to things like Community Standards. Sadly, we seem to live in a world of hyper-sensitive crybabies and professional victims.

This guy has had 3.5 years to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to GigaLaw and search for 'zuccarini'. John Zuccarini has been busted for this before.

My mom has a German Shepherd that learns faster than this for godssakes.

Deterrence

[dghcasp]

I'm finding it funny that people are saying "What? Jail time is way too much for this? Shouldn't you just make them take it down?"

That's no deterrent... Make a million, someone tells you to stop. You still have the million. Where's the deterrance?

On the other hand, most people don't want to go to prison. Prison is bad. It scares people who aren't already criminals. What are you going to answer on the next job interview about what you were doing the past two years? "Oh, I was in prison because of a stupid federal law. And I learnt all about the bizzare kinds of sex that I was redirecting people to first-hand." Or first-arse. Whatever.

Re:How on Earth do they come up with these acronym

[Bobdoer]

Yes, they do.

no you wouldn't

[segment]

Been there done that. There is no money worth staying in prison for. I know guys who defrauded banks for millions who would have turned the other way if it meant saving their families the embarrassment, and hardships they'd suffered by being locked up. So you mean to tell me you would put a price on your wife and kids, family, dignity? If so, then you my friend will be a lonely sad person in the future. "making you a bitch" is reserved for prisons, not white collar places, you'd have to be in a USP for something like that to happen. Club Fed as we called it is Camp Cupcake, think of a college with no chicks, and no gates (for the camps), for the lows, same shit. Medium - High you'd run into things here and there, but what your thinking of via conditioning you've seen or read about is limited to high security prisons, and state prisons. Club Fed is as they call it Club Fed.

Re:no you wouldn't

[justMichael]

So you mean to tell me you would put a price on your wife and kids, family, dignity?

err, this is slashdot, the odds are good that prison isn't much different than moms basement, no windows, well except for the whole never bending at the waist thing and he would have...

wait

for

it...

One Meeelion Dollars

note to self, slashdot and alcohol are a bad mix. ;)

Re:no you wouldn't

[LostCluster]

The federal prison system also has a lot fewer violent people behind their bars. Yeah, they have a "Supermax" where the Oaklahoma City bomber meets the Unabomber and they become friends, but that's the rare exception for the Federal system.

Most federal criminals are white-collar offenders. Afterall, typical murderers, armed robbers and rapists all end up in a state prison, not a federal one. Most federal crimes involve business transactions gone fraudlent. Since the feds have a lot more non-violent offenders, and the ability to transport offenders from state to state, they can group all of the white-collar criminals together into a Club Fed situation in a way that the states just can't.

Re:no you wouldn't

[segment]

actually you're wrong. Colorado ADSX is called Supermax because it's a 24/7 lock down. There is no contact with anyone, no other contact period. Your mail even, is scanned and shown to you. Think Hannibal Lecter like shit, and you have your ADSX. There is also a Supermax in Baltimore, that one however allows for one hour worth of rec time. Put it like this, ADSX is pretty much your pre-coffin place to go. All of the higher ups like the Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam, terrorist from the original WTC bombing go there. There is no however meeting up to plot anything between anyone in Co., Lompoc, Lewisburgh, Atlanta USP would be the clubfeds of choice for that activity. USP Allenwood is another place for high profilers, a lot of gov spies end up there. Hanssen is there, and ironically the medium custody (lower than the USP security wise), is a lot more dangerous. In places where people have a mandatory life, most just want to go on and live the measley life because they know there is nothing left. In the medium security places, you're likely to find the most violence. People there are frustrated waiting for their day to come, and there is a lot of jealousy especially when it comes time for someone to go. Someone is liable to try to kill you because you're on the way out, and they have about 10 to go.

Again, I say this out of experience. The lower security places called FCI's, are where people go for lower class cases, but keep in mind that as time goes on, people get their classifications lowered, so you end up seeing people who have done 20 years in a camp or a low who are on their way out in as much as 10 years. For the most part though, you won't find anyone with a 10 year sentence in a low, and someone with more than 5 years in a camp (no gate prison). So it goes like this... ADSX/Supermax = Kiss your ass goodbye. USP = 10+ years mainly violent cases, drug cases, ^*other, Mediums 10-* years (most violent), FCI's (low security) mainly on mil bases 1 month - 10 years, Camps = 1 month - 5 years. Heavy white collar crimes no security risks. Pedophiles, sex offenders, anyone with violence could never go to one of these because you have to have what's called community custody, and you don't get that if you pose a threat to society.

So while offtopic, this is club fed 101.

Re:no you wouldn't

[AxelBoldt]

This is important information; you should write it up for Wikipedia.

Yes, Exactly!

[Elpacoloco]

A lot of things we silly humans do is motivated by money...so take away any motivation!

Make it two million.

Re:Yes, Exactly!

[digitalunity]

That's actually a good, logical solution to the problem. In Canada, a lot of Marijuana distribution convictions are solved with big fines. That is a logical solution. Many people sell drugs to make a quick buck. Big fines provide a good disincentive. Much more so than jail. Obviously, time in prison isn't a very good deterrent to committing crime. Just look at the US!

Re:Yes, Exactly!

[ichimunki]

Except when you look at the crime rates in the U.S. they have been falling steadily since 1993. So maybe it's time to retool that argument.

Excessive government fines are simply taxation in disguise-- and in this case it sounds like those taxes will fall hardest on people who can least afford them (i.e. poor people trying to earn a living). If the drugs weren't illegal in the first place there would be no profit motive because normal market prices would drive the prices way down because the supply would go way up). And unlike prescription drugs, street drugs are unencumbered by patents, so anyone with a garden could potentially become a supplier of the plant derived stuff. :)

The good and the bad...

[no longer myself]

Of course we all want the scumbags to go to jail for bringing about this tragedy of the commons, but at the same time I can't help but wonder if it's possible to use this bit of law as the first step in the direction towards censoring any internet content that someone might find offensive.

Oh sure... Someone could argue that partybeef.com could be typed in by a 6 year old looking for snacks for her friends, (not a real site, so use your imagination...) Next thing you know the site operator ends up as a piece of party beef in a federal prison because someone decided it was obviously misleading.

What is obvious to me is that the next step will involve going after anyone who puts objectionable material on the net without it being clearly labeled, registered, and hidden behind a credit card required brown paper wrapper page.

And what about unintentionally misleading Google results? When will they hold us liable for that? This one actually disturbs me a little.

Re:Why would he want to mislead children?

[Bootsy Collins]

The deal he had with the porn sites had him getting paid for referrals. Not for referrals that actually sign on, but simply the number of referrals. So he was screwing over the people who were paying him, as well.

In fact, that's apparently why he targeted the kids. According to his admission, it wasn't that he had some thing about making kids see porn. It was that kids were more likely to make spelling errors, so they were more likely to come across his typosquatting websites; so if he targeted kids, his referral numbers would be higher.

He probably won't get to keep it

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm not sure about this law specifically, but the government can usually seize illegally gained funds for this very reason. Otherwise, people would do illegal things to make millions, go to jail, then enjoy life. So it is highly likely they'll take what he made on this scam.

Re:He probably won't get to keep it

[Dr Reducto]

My grandfather knew someone who embezzled 5 millio dollars (that the courts knew about) he did 5 years, but did not have any money seized, because the money was all overseas by that time. He did have to make sure never to buy a house in America though. They can seize your assets. As for what the other guy said about losing your dignioty and what you put your family through, I wouldn't do that if I had a family. It wouldn't be worth the risk. You do it while you are single and young, and then you get everything out of the way.

Also...

[Nimloth]

I think Hotmail.com should be prosecuted for diverting traffic off of Hotmale.com. Some kids expecting gay pr0n might be offended by the usual "Enlarge your penis".

Messed up...

[softspokenrevolution]

That's just really gross. Really, if I was a porn site provider and some guy was redirecting to my site through kiddie bits, I wouldn't be very happy. Primarily because they're taking my money and just throwing it all over the place.

Beyond even the issue of being a scum bag with arguably scummy people, using sites popular with children with a method that drags in more kids than adults. I think this makes him the kingof the scumbags.

Damn... was(Re:finally...)

[justMichael]

You are either the gaotse guy or you know way too much about the goatse guy... either way, I need a shower ;)

Re:Damn... was(Re:finally...)

[dasmegabyte]

Dude...we ALL know too much about the goatse guy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I don't care that they were adult sites.

[LordK3nn3th]

Really, I don't. I really could care less that he was tricking children. Sex is a fact of life. Hell, anything is, we only set ourselves up to get offended-- I was never offended much by things as a child-- I think it's really blown out of proportion.

I don't think goatse would disturb me any more if I was a young kid. I really can't see why those subjective "sex-is-bad" ideas come from, besides society and religion. I only hear vague "kids aren't ready" bullshit.

HOWEVER, he is cybersquatting, that is, playing off popular website typos to send people to his crap. That's like the mikerowesoft.com case-- although on an even worse level.

I don't care that children saw Janet Jackson's boob on TV (GASP TEH END OF DA WORLD!!!!11) and I don't care if they accidently see "DORM SEX". It didn't disturb or pervert me, and I see no scientific evidence to suggest it'll do the same for kids.

Let's keep our personal morality out of it (this creates problems. FCC guidelines, for example, require "community standards of decency". Oh joy, isn't that just a nice, fine, "freedom-of-expression" friendly phrase?) and focus on the real issue, which is cybersquatting.

The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[Anonymous Coward]

I, unlike most /. posters, can comment on prison based on experience. I have spent time there, as an inmate.

It's my firm belief that sending non-violent criminals to prison
does more harm than good.

There are many other ways to punish someone, besides sending them to prison : home confinement, community service, probation, fines, are all better options for a large percentage of offenders.

Prison should only be the punishment of last resort. It is far from a solution, and the notion that sending some people to
prison acts to prevent others from committing crimes is childishly naive, and doesn't stand up to statistical scrutiny.

Sending non-violent offenders to prison is only one more
in a long series of huge mistakes made by the US government.
Of course, this will not be news to intelligent, well-read people.

All you "law and order" types need to consider this : when someone is sent to prison, unless they die there or have a life sentence, they WILL eventually be released. And when they are,
the rest of society will very likely pay some sort of price for the damage this person has incurred while in prison. Thus, society is
screwing itself by sending non-violent offenders ( or offenders who don't present an actual danger to society ) to prison. Far better to keep these people OUT of prison and punish them in some other way. NOTE : I do believe that crimes *should* be punished, but the point is, it's possible to punish people without
permanently damaging them, that sending someone to prison is quite likely to result in permanent damage.

Any of you out there who haven't done time are not sufficiently informed to comment on the advisability of sending non-violent offenders to prison. You can of course write what you like, but keep in mind that your thoughts might have the same level of
validity as those of a man describing what pregnancy feels like.

Oh, and the invasion of Iraq was about preserving access to oil,
and the "anti-gay marriage" stance the current administration has embraced is an attempt to pander to the religious right
and gain votes.

Don't let YOUR government sucker you into accepting policies that end up screwing YOU.

Thanks, and good evening.

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[Anonymous Coward]

and the notion that sending some people to
prison acts to prevent others from committing crimes is childishly naive

it may have little effect on others, but i bet that sending you to prison will deter you from committing crimes in the future. at least, moreso than -- heh -- "community service."

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[kir]

You are a troll. You have no credibility as an AC and you throw that off-topic "party line" drivel at us in the end (Iraq war for oil; "anti-gay marriage" is pandering; etc. WTF?).

Troll or Tool. Take your pick.

Either that, or you're experimenting. That little voice inside of me (SHUT UP! I'm trying to type.) is telling me [in a Jiminy Cricket type voice], "Perhaps he's not a troll. Perhaps he is performing an experiment to see how the modding will go if he posts what the slashdot 'vocals' want to hear?"

Hmmm....

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[Phroggy]

Why aren't the christians calling for execution of homosexuals or at least making homosexuality a death penalty offense.

Because according to the New Testament, Christians aren't bound by Jewish laws such as those found in Leviticus.

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[ruprechtjones]

Yet maybe he is right. I don't agree with the whole ending Iraq stuff at the end of his post, but everything else is right on. If you ever did time for something stupid that you did, yet you learned way more within a jail cell about how to do crime "successfully" (i.e. good methods to get away with shit), you would understand his post.

Not all of us have taken the straight and level path, yet I never learned about true methods of crime until I was within a jail cell. Spend a month (that's thirty days of hell, let me repeat thirty days of expaining to your boss why you can't show up for work) in lockup, and you'll not only learn a lot about the other side, you'll also learn a lot about that little thing that you thought was no big deal yet landed you in this situation. Troll? Yeah, a troll from jail who has experienced the misery of lockup hell. It sucks, don't try this at home. It will jade you for life.

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I've also done time, for a non-violent offense. In my case, it straightened me out big time. Being behind bars is a horrible feeling, and I came away with a healthy respect for the law. Hell, to be completely honest, I came away with a raw fear of the consequences of ever breaking the law again.

You never seem to hear this point of view - I don't know if my experience was uncommon or not, but in my case prison had precisely the intended effect. Punishment and deterrence.

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[forgotmypassword]

The problem is our prison systems. There are plenty of asian countries where the probability of returning to prison decreases significantly. Most of these prisons are run like military schools and are tailored for training people to conform to society.

Our prisons are simply an unhappy place to be, where bad people do more bad things and have more bad things done to them. None of this promotes reform.

I agree with your assessment, and I think that your solution is valid but only temporary. I think our prisons should be run like reform schools where people have to do back-breaking work and conform to a strict etiquette.

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[222]

Prison has also been linked to premature linebreaks. News at 11.

In all seriousness, i couldnt agree with you more. A common example is when people are sentanced to prison for possesion of marijuana. I mean, seriously. Because stoners are a danger to the donut population?

A simple glance at how overpopulated our criminal justice system is should give a strong indication that, as you stated, we're putting people away that might not mandate that type of punishment.

If the prison doesnt kill them, the mental detachment from being institutionalized will, for all intents and purposes, end their life.
Although i dont have any personal experiences with prison, my jail ventures estimate about 50% of the inmates were there for marijuana related issues, 20% child support, 20% DUI, and 10% of assorted (and sometimes entertaining :) crimes.
Remember, your tax dollars pay for this....

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[HrothgarReborn]

Translation: I went to prison and I really didn't like it. Please stop sending people there when they do bad things. It scares me, and I want to be less worried when I break the unimportant laws.

People who trample on the rights of others for selfish gain, wether this guy who force feeds porn to people or Daryl McBride who tries to destroy other peoples livelyhood through slander, deserve to have thier rights revoked. The fact that the crime did not involve a gun does not mean all you'll get is comunity service.

Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison :

[shadowbearer]

I'll add to that the fact that it can be very hard, sometimes nearly impossible, to get a job after being in prison (irrelevant of why you were sent there). So oftentimes people who have been in the joint have to turn to crime again after they are out, just to be able to feed themselves.

Prison can be counterproductive for many reasons - and I'm mostly thinking of non-violent offenders, as was the GGPoster. I feel that a more apt penalty for the guy the article talks about would have been to take every penny he had away from him, give him huge amounts of community service, and remove his internet access for at least a few years.
Maybe make him attend some classes/seminars about what he did, although I have my doubts about their effectiveness.

I fail to see the justification of his sentence. As others have pointed out, he wasn't producing child porn, nor, apparently, even distributing it. He just got greedy and really stupid. So perhaps the punishment should fit the crime.

SB

Lock him up...

[John Seminal]

From the article: Zuccarini admitted in court documents that one reason he preyed on websites popular among children was ''because children are more likely than adults to make spelling errors and to mis-type website addresses,'' prosecutors said. He then redirected the children to porn.

This is a sick person. He targeted children. Not only that, but if people can make a stink about Lindows because it sounds too much like windows and causes confusion in adults at computer stores, then how can they let this slide where he tricked children to watching porn? What the hell is this guys value system? Making 10 cents off each child he tricks to going to a porn site? Was the 10 cents worth it for him? I would like to hear what he has to say in prision, when he is forced to look at jail porn, live and first hand.

No, it's the concept of variable sentences

[Sycraft-fu]

Most crimes do not have one and only one possible sentence. Generally, the court has leeway. The law perscribes maximum and sometimes minimum sentences for a given crime. This is so there is some additonal deterrence for repeat offenders. You do something once, you are likely to get a sentence quite a bit under the maximum. However if you are back in court for the third time on the same offence, they can hit you with a harder sentence.

Dorm.Sex.party - Cell-block.assrape.festival

[leereyno]

Instead of "Dorm sex party" his website will have to say "Cell Block assrape festival." He's going to be passed around like a joint and won't be able to sit down for a week before they're done with him.

How about child porn, by your logic?

[InfiniteWisdom]

What about taking pictures of children naked? Especially if you do it surrepticiously. You're not touching them... you're not giving or showing them anything! Gee that shouldn't be illegal at all!

Re:How about child porn, by your logic?

[Famatra]

"Child porn is illegal because it does hurt the children (Whether you're causing it to happen, or distributing it, etc.)"

The same way I guess that rape videos, or news and movies about murder also hurts people; and since rape and murder is also illegal, like childporno, I guess you are infavor of censoring action movies and the news.

Re:How about child porn, by your logic?

[Famatra]

"There's no way that you can justify child porno in our society."

What I asked was:

"The same way I guess that rape videos, or news and movies about murder also hurts people; and since rape and murder is also illegal, like childporno, I guess you are infavor of censoring action movies and the news."

I take your (non)response as a "I am a hypocrite since some illegal things are ok to video tape and promote (like violence) and others are not ok", unless of course you would actually like to reply this time with your arguement as how some illegal things can be censored and others not.

Superstitious stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiss a tit, it's an X. Hack it off with a sword, PG-13 --Jack Nicholson

Is $1, 000 000 worth 30 months jail?

[CreationX]

So really at the end of the day this person has pocketed $1 million USD for 30 months jail. No wonder he pleded guilty. I would trade a short holiday to jail for that....!!!

Re:Is $1, 000 000 worth 30 months jail?

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Yeah and come out with a new "boyfriend" + a loose anus as well.

No, that's not the first jail sentence

[rahard]

No, that's not the first jail sentence. Here, in Indonesia, there was one case of domain name squatter that resulted in jail time. The person who did this registered a competitor domain name. He was sentenced to jail. It was treated as unfair competition. He went to the slammer for 3 months!

-- b

preying on children

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to see a much more obvious approach at directing children toward a "product", simply watch about 5 minutes of any kids television show on network television - for example, on cartoon network.

i think corporate america is even more guilty of pushing their products down kids throats than this guy. corporate america doesn't even need to rely on mispelled words, just some clever marketing techniques.

i'm not sure what's worse, seeing some naked chicks - or convincing children to be mindless consumers to feed the bankrolls of greedy corporations.

Bah

[Deltan]

America is becoming less & less "American" all the time.

The government is -not- your mom. They shouldn't be required to take these kinds of measures because some soccer mom saw her child get re-directed to some hot fisting action.

If there's any 'america' left in Americas geeks, some smart kid will capitalize on soccer mom paranoia; by writing an app which catalogs all these re-directs and makes sure that the user never sees the end result of that offensive URL. Then sell it for mucho coin. Yay for Free Enterprise and not Socialism!

Profit???

[corian]

It's just bad business sense more than anything else. Who is the potential customer? How many people are heading to, say, slashdot or nytimes.com to read the news or such, make a typo, get one of these sites, and say "oh, this looks good! i think i'll get out my credit card and subscribe to this!"

Of course not! You're going to just close the window and try again to type in the site you wanted to go to in the first place.

If you wanted porn, it's easy enough to find yourself. Even if you were the type to pay for it, would you really go to the source with in-your-face pop-up advertising? Jeesh.

I wouldn't make it illegal, but I can't see ANY possible financial benefits for porn sites to justify this practice.

Re:Profit???

[randyest]

The redirector guy made profit because he was paid by the porn sites for the traffic. They don't care (or bother to check) how he gets the traffic to the site, they just count the impressions and pay the money (usually).

So, as with a lot of nefarious or nebulous web "businesses" (porn sites, spam, mortgage leads, etc.), the problem arises because of a disconnect in interest and accountability between the site owner who pays for impressions, and the scumbag who does scummy things to get them. To be clear: the guy mentioned in the article wasn't acutally running any porn sites himself, as far as I can tell, he was simply creating redirect sites that sent people who made typos to porn sites. The independently-run porn sites would pay him for each visitor he sent their way.

Of course, you're right in the long run that the porn sites will lose money on the deal (they pay scumbag, but his leads generate few or no closes). Maybe eventually it'll catch up to them and they stop paying for such useless leads (or at least to him in partuclar, until he changes his name or identity and does is all over again), but probably not. I remember the days when even reputable companies would pay a few bucks per 1000 pageviews, regardless of how you got them there, but that's long past, and the only sites still able to (promise) to pay such fees for visits are porn sites,

ICANN dropped the ball

[John Sully (I hate a]

I was quite disappointed when ICANN did not set up a ".xxx" domain. The purveyors of smut in the past has gladly taken up the X or XXX rating so that customers could be sure of the quality of the product that they were getting. I am sure that the internet generation would be more than happy to do the same thing because the .xxx domain would tend to drive traffic to their sites.

Oh, well, another reason to get rid of ICANN.

Re:ICANN dropped the ball

[Animats]

We have a sleazy TLD already. It's called ".biz". The reputation of ".biz" is so bad that there are spam filters that reject anything related to a ".biz" domain.

Are you?

[Julian Morrison]

What's with this expert-worship in culture nowadays. Sheesh. As if it takes an expert to understand kids.

Get a leash...

[michaeltoe]

I can remember seeing porn as early as the 4th grade... Sadly to say, I'm haven't become emotionally scarred by it.

I guess I can't support America's paranoia about its own sexuality.

Re:Get a leash...

[Fishstick]

Yeah, I remember seeing porn at an early age as well. My granpa had a stack of playboys hidden in the garage. That was _some_ porn! Nekkid women, posing on a bed, or maybe outside! With no clothes on! Wow!

I discovered my 10 year old had been using my wife's laptop to look for porn when a couple of his neighborhood friends came over. Let me tell you, this was not your granpa's porn. No doubt, he was curious and found a couple of sites and within seconds was clicking links that carried him into brutal domination, shit and piss, fuck me with a crowbar land.

I think the difference is that the net makes it too easy to end up seeing sick, violent, degrading sexual images unintentionally. If you're an adult, and that's what your're into -- fine by me. When I was a kid, the only way I would have been able to get access to that kind of stuff would have been to get on a bus and go across town to where the sex shops and peep shows were.

I don't think seeing those images will scar him for life, but I'd rather he didn't see that kind of stuff until he was a bit older and better equiped to understand what that's all about.

Thought Crimes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Simply put, this law and the sentence are pure bullshit. The kind of people who support it are the same kind of people who got all worked up over Janet's Right Tit.

The first BIG problem with this law is the typical slippery slope thing. Here's just one example: What if someone is a really big proponent of gay marriage and instead of redirecting these typo-sites to porno, he redirects them to a bunch of gay marriage propaganda -- nothing pornographic at all, just stuff designed to convince adults and children alike that the "gay lifestyle" is OK. With recent events, it is clear that there are a LOT of people in America who consider homosexuality to be obscene. Should a guy like that get 3 years in the slammer?

The second big problem is this American attitude that sex is bad. First off - kids who haven't reached puberty don't care diddly about sex. Left to their own devices, pre-pubescent kids will take a look or two at porn, and then click on to something that they care about. It just doesn't mean anything to them. On the other hand, kids hitting puberty are going to seek out the porn all on their own. If anything, this scam will convince them that on the internet, porn costs money and maybe delay them from finding some of those free all-you-can-eat-and-then-some porn sources like alt.binaries.erotica.

All this law does is "protect" parents who were long ago indoctrinated with the sex-is-bad meme from feeling embarassed when they sit down with their kids at the computer and end up at one of the porn sites.

Don't take the above statements to mean that I condone what the guy did, but it is just a minor annoyance -- on the level of pop-up ads, nothing more. The saying about freedom not being free is directly applicable here - true freedom of expression means people using that right to express stuff that disgusts you in ways that disgust you but for the greater good of society we all put up with the disgusting stuff. If we didn't, then all we'd ever have is politically correct, but effectively lifeless expression in public.

Re:Thought Crimes

[vegetablespork]

The kind of people who support it are the same kind of people who got all worked up over Janet's Right Tit.

Worse. These are the kind of people that get worked up over Justice's right tit!

while you are at it...

[cruel_elevator]

Look at morningafterpill.org. It appears to be a propaganda site for American Life League (ALL.org - some pro-life / anti-abortion group) and contains no useful information whatsoever. It does nothing except to screw with the minds of people looking for serious information, and probably cause un/ill-informed teens in thinking that they're doing something ethically questionable.

This is the last place to look at when you've got a situation at hand - and it comes up as the first link when you google for "morning after pill". Shouldn't these guys be charged for seriously misleading people?

BTW, this site has all the correct information about this topic. In case you didn't know, Emmergency Contraception (EC) is a method of birth control when something bad happens, like your rubber breaking.

Why do we imprison violent criminals?

[jgardn]

Why do we send non-violent criminals to prison to bunk with violent criminals?

I'm sorry, but if you believe that using force to commit crime is a good idea, I don't think you belong on the earth anymore. I certainly won't miss anyone who brings a gun into a store and threatens to kill someone if they don't hand them a wad of cash. I will feel a lot safer knowing that somewhere down the road, said criminal won't be getting out on "good behavior". In fact, said criminal won't even get a chance to execute his elaborate escape scheme.

Prison time is useful -- it's a way to send a message to people that no matter how much money you have, you only have so much time, and if you want to spend that time ruining other people's lives, you're going to pay with your time.

But when you threaten someone else's life, or take a life, you are going to pay with your life. It's that simple.

The jury knew the consequences of their decisions, and they weighed the facts and opinions and emotions better than anyone else could. In the end, they knew without a shadow of a doubt that the criminal was guilty, and they put him down for good. The jury will be held accountable in their own way, whether in their conscience or in the afterlife. But there is no more just way of trial than by jury or your peers.

Re:Why do we imprison violent criminals?

[dunkelfalke]

hah. the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. first, the consequences never, i repeat, never stop potential criminals who decided to do a crime. even death penalty don't.

second, in the jail, criminals learn quite a lot interesting things and they meet other criminals. and after they are released they have more than enough knowledge and contacts to do much much bigger crimes.

Our justice system is broken

[jgardn]

I think it is readily apparent to any sane, thoughtful person that our justice system in the US is broken.

We have too many ideologues on the bench, trying to legislate when they should merely consider the facts and the law.

The courts regularly overturn the constitution. Where in the world did they find the "right" for a woman to have an abortion? Did they totally ignore the 10th amendment?

Too many judges give lenient punishments. Some do it because they don't believe that punishment is the best thing to do. Others do it because they are afraid of being overturned by a higher court.

Too many criminals walk away scott-free. Take a look at this Joseph Smith character. He committed a crime he was already convicted of.

We should be impeaching a lot more judges than we do now. We should have a more powerful president who refuses to enforce unjust decisions. We shouldn't let the judicial branch make decisions for the executive branch or the legislative branch. There has to be a balance between the three.

Right now, judges issue executive orders. Judges write new law, or they order new laws to be written. They disobey current laws.

Our system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. Whatdoyabet that this marriage amendment gets passed, gets ratified, gets adopted, and they overturn it anyway? Heck, it's happened to the 10th and the 2nd, why not the 28th?

What recourse will the people have then, if we can't even amend the constitution to hold the courts in check?

Re:Our justice system is broken

[squiggleslash]

The courts regularly overturn the constitution. Where in the world did they find the "right" for a woman to have an abortion? Did they totally ignore the 10th amendment?

The 10th would actually be on the side of women having the right to have an abortion, as it reserves all rights not given by the constitution to the government to the people. The courts do seem to ignore this on a regular basis, but by definition they can't be ignoring it when they remove a right from the Federal or State governments (the latter being subject to the 10th themselves since the Civil War) and give it back to the people themselves.

Law is a complex issue and many decisions on the constitutionality of an issue will be based upon a collection of arguments, from previous decisions to simple matters of practicality to specifics defined by the constitution itself. Arguing that the constitution says nothing about a woman's right to an abortion directly and therefore that a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion is a little like arguing that the proof of Fermat's Last Theorum is mathematically invalid because you can't get to it with a one line proof involving addition and subtraction.

Constitutional scholars tend, when being critical about the Roe vs Wade ruling, to be concerned about a small part of it, namely the issues over whether abortion can be banned in the various trimesters of pregnancy. The rest of the ruling is usually considered watertight by all but the most ideological.

Whatdoyabet that this marriage amendment gets passed, gets ratified, gets adopted, and they overturn it anyway?

Probably none, because I see little will in Congress and the Senate for defiling the constitution with an amendment that takes rights away, so it'll never get as far as being passed and ratified.

Re:Our justice system is broken

[tgibbs]

The courts regularly overturn the constitution. Where in the world did they find the "right" for a woman to have an abortion? Did they totally ignore the 10th amendment?

The the greatest genius of the framers of the Constitution is that they founded our country upon powerful general principles of freedom and equality. In many cases they themselves were not ready to face the full implications of those principles, yet in a truly subversive act, they gave those principles the ultimate power of law.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, although clearly recognizing the evil of slavery, was unable to give up his own slaves. Yet he helped to found our country general principles that would ultimately make slavery untenable.

These powerful principles were like time bombs in our Constitution, and it was left to the logicians of our society--the judges--to work out the full implications of those principles. It has taken over two hundred years to do so, and we are not done yet.

There is a danger that we will turn away from those deep principles. There have been attempts in the past, such as the effort to amend the Constitution to make burning the flag an exception to the protection of free speech. We are seeing this again, with the effort to amend the Constitution to prohibit states from allowing gay marriage.

If we ever do start to amend the Constitution so as to limit people's rights instead of expanding them, I believe that our nation will have turned a corner from which there is no returning, and will have begun a repudiation of those principles of freedom and equality which our founders fought so hard to establish.

But we've approached that brink and turned back before. I can only hope that we will continue to do so.

Re:Our justice system is broken

[pauljlucas]

Right now, judges issue executive orders. Judges write new law, or they order new laws to be written. They disobey current laws.

Yes, exactly, and rightly so because many laws passed are unconstitutional. That's the entire point of having a branch of government largely unburdoned with reelection considerations. Just because you may not like some of their decisions doesn't make them wrong.

Re:Our justice system is broken

[aeryn_sunn]

I believe you need to re-read Roe v. Wade...the actual opinion to get an idea of what the seven justices who were part of the majority were talking about...the Courts as you put it do not overturn the Constitution ever, they interpret the Constitution...

more pointedly, the substantive due process reasoning the Court used in Roe was the same reasoning the Court used to overturn bans on interracial marriages, Loving v. Virginia, and the right for married couples to make intimate decisions such whether or not to use birth control, see Griswold v. Connecticut...the rightly interpreted penumbras in the Bill of Rights that forbid the government from interfering in certain personal and very private decisions...

By your reasoning, the states could limit the number of children a couple or person could have...the states could require a license for a person to have a child...or the states could make laws that forbids all sexual positions besides missionary...or that sodomy between two consenting adults is a crime...under your so called theory of the 10th amendment, states could limit very private activities such as these...but that is far from what the founders notions of state sovereignty was about...Lucky for us and I would say the majority of Americans, our Courts have correctly interpreted the Constitution....

Moreover, do you think under the guise of the 10th Amendment the states should be allowed to discriminate against minorities? The tired states' rights argument was made many times during the era of Brown v. Board of Education

Perhaps I am not watching the "correct" news channel or listening to the "correct" right wing demagogue (sorry, Ann Coulter is not an authority on Constitutional law) but did I miss the story about the 10th and 2nd Amendments getting "overturned"? No, the 10th Amendment is alive and well in Constitution Jurisprudence, See Printz v. United States, Reno v. Condon ....and last I heard, the 2nd Amendment was live and kicking from the observation that the local gun store is still doing a brisk business....

What judges do you want to impeach? what exactly did they do that rises to the level of impeachment? If you are referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges, read their opinion about the gay marriage issue. Those so called judges that our President is villifying for political reasons to cater to his "base" have done nothing that warrants the repeated character assassination by our President. Their opinion is based on the interpreation of the Mass. Cosntitution. Those judges did what judges were suppose to do...just because they came to a decision that you do not agree with does not mean the judges committed an impeachable act...

furthermore, what exact unjust decisions should our President overturn? What specific decisions did the judicial branch make for the executive and legislative branch? Again, your arguments are the same ones segregationist made in the 1950s...and I am sure, if you have been listening to Fox and our President that you are probably upset with Alabama Ten Commandments case too...again, read the opinion of that case, Glassroth v. Moore, 299 F. Supp 2d 1290...probably one of the most comprehensive and thoughful opinion's written by a federal judge.

Ultimately it is tiresome to hear people like you regurgitating "activist" judge crap that our President and the rest of the majority of the right wing likes to scream. It is an ignorant statement to repeat, (see Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), for an example of Scalia's "activistism")...again, it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the Constitution and declare laws that violate the Constitution as invalid...it is the State Supreme Court's of most of states, i.e. Mass, to interpret their own state Constitutions and declare laws that violate their state Constitutions as invalid...this power of the Courts is what keeps our government in balance...it is this powe

Re:Our justice system is broken

[pnuema]

They got you. You have fallen for conservative propaganda.

Take they Mass. case for instance.

From boston.com:

The SJC case began in 2001 after seven same-sex couples from Boston to Northampton to Orleans went to their local city or town offices and applied for marriage licenses. When their requests were rejected, they filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court.

This is a no-brainer. The judges ruled that this action was unconstitutional. Period. No "orders" were given to force the state to change its behavior. They simply ruled that what they were currently doing was against the law - being that there was no law, anywhere, that explicitly forbade the practice; so therefore, under the US 10th amemdment, (or the Mass. equivalent), because no right had explicitly been denied anywhere in Mass. law, it had to be granted. The "Gap in the law" you refer to is covered by the 10th amendment -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the state had not restricted by law a gay couple's right to marry, that right belonged to the people. Ergo, they have that right if they wish.

Your view that judges can't find a "gap" in a law shows your ignorance of the judicial process, or case law in specific. It isn't really your fault, though. It is common practice by conservatives to label judges who make decisions they don't like "activist judges", implying action on the part of the judge. You have just fallen for conservative propaganda.

What about whitelists ?.

[openmtl]

Come on get a life; Do you leave your 4yr old kids wandering around the mall while you go shopping ? Or do you bother with locks on porn channels on the satellite or cable ?.

No ? - well then how the hell is it that you think its fine to leave an unfirewall-unwhitelisted account for your children to use when surfing the net ?.

Having a unfiltered/unfirewalled PC at home should be a criminal offence of the parents. Anyone who complains about Internet junk and their children is missing the point. The internet isn't some sort of big electronic library but an electronic analog of humanity. With it comes all the variety of life.

I just think anti-typosquatter laws are one of those laws that'll be used to catch parody sites like *insert politician here*sucks.com. He only made money because the referals paid on visits or click-throughs. Go for those that paid him the money.

Re:What about whitelists ?.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only comment that I have seen that touched on the real issue here. People taking responsibility for their own actions. What are kids doing unsupervised on the Internet in the first place? Surprise! We adults know that there are "dangers" out there just like in the real world. Is the guys intent slimy? Of course. But, I'm blaming the victims parents here, for without them, there would be no victim.

Uh, no

[autopr0n]

It's not a felony to register domain names, it's a felony to use those domain names to mislead people into looking at porn.

Re:Uh, no

[Dogtanian]

Dammit... since you're the proprieter of the 'autopr0n' website, can I sue you for not providing me with vehicle-based pornography?

Not that I'm saying I'm the type of guy to get off on watching a cute Asian car get jump-started by two big black American limousines, nor enjoy in any way watching a car park full of BMWs do each other, or monster trucks or...... ahem... doesn't do it for me at all.

No, I spend all my time perusing goatse like a good Slashdotter, but if I was that way inclined, then I'd feel pretty damn cheated that I wasn't getting hot European cars, or whatever.

so many things wrong

[Qrlx]

There are so many things wrong with this. First of all, I didn't read the article. But that's not even important. My opinions matter way more than me having to read some article on Slashdot.

Number one, the fact that somebody is registering domain names that are spell-alikes of real domains is questionable. The fact that they get linked to some porno site is sleazy. The part where he made a million dollars helps draw things into focus a bit, though. Before that I thought this guy was some sort of pedophile psycho. But apparently he's just trying to make a buck off the Internet, and who here hasn't tried that. There are plenty who have cyber-succeeded and not been sleazy, sure. But it's the Wild West, baby!

But does this particular sleazy incident warrant Congresional action? It seems to me like it's only a handful of people registering these URLs. Heck this guy must have done quite a few to net $1mil. (Maybe I'd know that if I read the article. Who cares.)

I'd like to know what sort of research Congress did before passing the PROTECT Act of 2003. Did they attempt to finger this dude? Apparently not or he surely would have been dragged before some committe, somewhere. Or did Congress hear horror stories of kids trying to find Pokemon on line only to find something that made them ask their parents uncomfortable questions.

Speaking of which, what the *fuck* are kids doing on the Internet in the first place? That is a dumb idea, it's neglectful for parents to let kids surf without watching over their shoulder. Of course the flip side to that is there should be some sort of decency standards, and without a doubt the Internet has been wrestling with that since, well, how long has alt.talk.abortion been around? For that matter I'm pretty sure I signed the "save goatse" petition.

Okay, I just read the article, it doesn't really answer any questions. I'd love to know what he had that got him the "one count of possessing child pornography."

You know what, this law sucks. This basically makes registering a domain name that might be mistaken for disney a federal crime. How about fuckdisney.com? Couldn't that fall under this umbrella? I thought that any company with half a brain would just register all the spell-alikes anyway; it's cheap and there's no way they'll get the wrong message then. This stinks like the 1998 NET Act, which made copyright infringement a federal crime too. What the fuck, Congress, is there no room for civil proceedings anymore? Let's just make everything a crime? Do you know how much money that is going to cost? We'll need a ton more federal lawyers, and prison space once you're done with the trials.

Criminalizing shady behavior is a slippery slope. It's perfectly legal to lie, in fact that right is pretty much guaranteed by the First Amendment. We should be working towards a society where issues like cybersquatting and redirecting kids to porn sites don't require contfrontational, litigational, Congressional intervention. We should be able to work this out without some bureaucrat deciding it's time we take heed of the power he wields.

The guy should have been aware of this law and just registered all these domain names from his villa in the Mediterranean, free of Uncle Sam's long arm. Aside from that, he probably deserves the 2.5 years he gets, even if the law he broke is totally for the benefit of Disney, Nickelodeon, and a few other exploitative corporation that prey on the young. They don't sell sex, but they pump a hell of a lot of sugar into the veins of young America. Why one is reprehensible and the other is condoned is anybody's guess.

Never enough

[Pherry]

Unfortunately if you give hime two he will reinvest until he has 4 etc. The only way of removing a motivating factor behind crime is remove the gain.

Don't give young kids open internet access?

[Denyer]

This seems to be a hard concept to grasp, but the worst kids could see online isn't a few people having sex for money. And there's no legitimate reason why we should block everything that doesn't carry the Barney seal of approval.

Young kids need a restricted subset of the net.

Not a troll, and certainly not a defence of domain-name scams, but something a number of people have apparently failed to grasp: a basic censor should be mandatory for young, kids, particularly where unsupervised. There's no way anything with "hot teen sex" in the page should be getting through to their browser in the first place.

Contrary to your belief...

[Kjella]

...taking pictures of children naked isn't a crime. Nudist/naturist vids end up having them all the time. Often not in secret (that's surreptitiously btw, if you want to be a quibbler), but I don't imagine they go around asking everyone around them for permission either. Or watch "Pretty Baby" or some other cinema movie, and you'll see Brooke Shields naked.

Then again, the US is the country that goes apeshit over seeing an adult woman's tit. I do realize that there is child porn - and yes, pictures can be child porn merely by showing children nude, if in a sexual position. But your post seems to imply that anything involving kids nude would be child porn. [Flamebait] Are you sure it's not your mind that makes that connection? [/Flamebait]

Kjella

Look-a-like telephone names and numbers, anyone?

[rmpotter]

The issue isn't free-speech, it's deliberate misrepresentation and costs users money (forcing them to waste bandwidth downloading junk they don't want).

What if it was legal to register look-a-like names and phone numbers in telephone directories? Or in Yellow Pages? Navigating through 12 spelling variations to find the number for a pizza joint would just be annoying. Kinda like wading through the crap that appears in a Google search list. Maybe every web domain registration should include a description of what the site is FOR. It would be fraudulent to host a website that varied significantly from its stated purpose. Your free speech is preserved along with the public's right to avoid your free speech.

Stupid

[t_allardyce]

The internet is full of dodgy stuff, you cant make it a safe haven for kids, period. So if your worrid about kids seeing something objectionable dont let them on the internet its simple. The 'digital learning revolution' is a myth, you dont need google to learn the alphabet or basic maths and if you want to show them something, download it first.

You cant go sending people to prision for this sort of thing its just stupid, next they'll be exicuting spammers and sending VB-script virus script-kiddies to camp X-ray. This guy was just trying to make a fast buck and if thats a crime then lets start thinking big *COUGH* ENRON *COUGH* there are hundereds of bigger basterds out there who have done far far worse and instead of rotting away behind bars end up being senators or presidents.

Re:So does this mean...

[Mitleid]

This is what I was referring to...

Re:My Domain was Hijacked - Advice? (NEED HELP)

[Motherfucking Shit]

Apparently I accidentally let the registration expire by a little bit, because all of a sudden someone else (UltimateSearch) snatched it up. One day, typing in my old domain name (www.chrysalisguitars.com) brings a page with 'common search results' which are all paid sponsor links. Bastards running hijacking scripts is my guess! What can I do??

Nothing. Your domain name wasn't "hijacked," it expired, and someone else re-registered it. That's how the system works.

It's happened to me too (and by the same group; WHOIS ipid.net). These days it's a little more difficult to lose a domain this way. Nearly all registrars will hold onto an expired domain for one month in the RedemptionPeriod status. This means the domain won't work - and you'll notice that you can't get to your site - but it gives you 30 days to figure this out and post a renewal before the domain becomes available on the open market.

If this didn't happen in your case, I'd suggest using a different registrar next time. DomainMonger has been good to me, and they do support the RedemptionPeriod. Of course, you have to visit your own site enough to realize that it's down, which in the case of ipid.net I didn't do, so I wound up losing that one anyway.