US Government Seizes Torrent Search Engine Domain

Voulnet writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE has seized the site's domain. 'My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!' the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning. 'I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy, I noticed the DNS had changed. GoDaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,' he explained. Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner."

Comments

Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a hoax. Whois the IP's involved.

Re:Hoax

[jhoegl]

Looks like the site got redirected to that SC hosting company
After reading TFA I found SOFTLAYER is the host of torrent-finder.com/ torrent-finder.info
So... how is this a hoax? Please explain your findings.

Re:Hoax

[Svippy]

This is a hoax. Whois the IP's involved.

I did. And torrent-finder.info resolves to 208.101.51.56, while torrent-finder.com resolves to 74.81.170.110.

On first inspection, those two IPs seems to be very distant from one another IP-block-wise, but you never know with the internet, so both got a whois, and apparently 208.101.51.56 is owned by Softlayer (as a poster prior to me mentions), while 74.81.170.110 is owned by Caroline Internet, Ltd.

So maybe the guy changed the IP for his .com-address and bought hosting somewhere else? I don't know what this Caroline Internet, Ltd. But if he did buy a virtual machine at a datacentre, then I will say 'will played, good sir!' That is a lot of a bucks spend to fake a site takeover.

Re:Hoax

[mauriceh]

CarolinA Internet - Lets get that name straight first.
They are in Charlotte, NORTH Carolina - Lets get the location right as well.

They are well know for hosting porn and other dodgy sites.

AND they are crooks. A lot of their equipment has been fraudulently obtained.

https://www.caro.net/about

There, just setting the facts straight.

Re:Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirmed: Not a hoax. NetSol (used to be) private registration leads to immixGroup IT Solutions, working for the public-sector (US Government) out of Virginia.

See also: SEIZEDSERVERS.COM registered two days ago.

This isn't a question of your country giving away your freedoms. This is a question of international responsibility, lack of it, and the impartiality and global importance of the DNS.

Now, states seizing their own domains is one thing and subject to their laws, and the US does own .COM, .ORG and .NET and unilateral actions without any form of apparent judicial warrant or oversight like this will shift people away from them. The old WHOIS data was deliberately invalid, so under the rules, they don't need notice. Even so, one of the affected sites is a .TV - I wonder what Tuvalu would have to say about this, diplomatically speaking? dotTV may be 80% owned by Verisign, but it's still 20% owned by Tuvalu. I wonder if this was cleared by them?

International reaction from this could be interesting - the host is only a little tier2. They are watching, and it appearing on the news is obviously making a bit of noise. They may get substantially more interest than they expected in the short-term, but it will wane unless they do something really stupid like target a high-profile site or, God help us, a fully-autonomous ccTLD on the DNS root - which, on their little power-trip, they might. One does hope they wouldn't be so... foolish: bullies get their toys taken away.

Re:Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this can indeed be a hoax, the DNS configuration for torrent-finder.com is kind of odd or is at least not fully propagated yet, I am able to have three different sets of nameservers show.

Under a WHOIS, you'll see these two:
      Name Server: NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM (74.81.170.109 - IP owned by CaroNet Managed Hosting)
      Name Server: NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM (74.81.170.108 - IP owned by CaroNet Managed Hosting)
&
      Name Server: NS51.DOMAINCONTROL.COM (216.69.185.26 - IP owned by GoDaddy)
      Name Server: NS52.DOMAINCONTROL.COM (208.109.255.26 - IP owned by GoDaddy)

If I run a query through my local ISP, however, I get these two:
      Name Server: ns2.torrent-finder.com (74.81.170.108 - IP owned by CaroNet Managed Hosting, same IP as NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM)
      Name Server: ns1.torrent-finder.com (74.81.170.109 - IP owned by CaroNet Managed Hosting, same IP as NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM)

Now... If I query each set of nameservers, torrent-finder.com resolves to the same IP in two cases:
$host -t a torrent-finder.com ns1.torrent-finder.com -- results in 74.81.170.110
$host -t a torrent-finder.com ns1.seizedservers.com -- results in 74.81.170.110
$host -t a torrent-finder.com ns51.domaincontrol.com -- results in 208.101.51.57

If we do a WHOIS on seizedservers.com, we can find that the domain was registered on November 24th 2010.

Draw your conclusions.

Re:Hoax

[hey!]

Well, it looks fishy to me. Here are the questionable elements.

(1) The domain registration information information still lists a private domain owner and and admin contact.

(2) The name servers ns1.torrent-finder.com and ns2.torrent-finder.com, as well as the torrent-finder.com ALL redirect to addresses in a private hosting company (74.81.170.108, .109 and .110 respectively), physically in Charlotte, NC. The picture you're greeted with is served from one of the hosting company's addresses.

(3) Whois reports the registrar to be Go Daddy, but the name servers ns1 and ns2.seizedservers.com whose IP addresses aremanaged by a private company called "wild west domains".

(4) The "seizedservers.com" domain is controlled by a company called "immixGroup IT solutions". The registrar is network solutions and the registrant is using network solution's privacy service to block his contact identity.

Notice what is missing here: any reference to a government controlled host, domain or name controller. All we have is a set of privately procured and managed name and web servers with anonymous administrative contacts. There is literally *nothing* to connect the picture you are seeing at the torrent-finders.com website to DHS, other than the picture's *claim*.

A little googling shows this exact same picture shows up in similar "DHS seizure" cases, with the exact same pattern of private servers and domains leading back to some anonymity service and NO government ip addresses, domains or contacts involved, although the *private* domains and servers involved are different. If this were a DHS seizure program, wouldn't the trail lead back to the same government contacts?

It looks to me like this is either a hoax or a case of private hijacking by a private individual or group who uses different domains and accounts to cover his tracks.

Re:Hoax

[slashdotard]

If not a hoax, then it would seem that DHS/ICS may have overstepped it's authority or is outside it's jurisdiction and is stepping on the Secret Service's and especially the FBI's toes.

The FBI still has primary jurisdiction in copyrights violation cases, IIRC.

What may have happened here is that someone went to the FBI to shutdown the sites, was denied, then went agency shopping and found the DHS/ICS eager to make their internet bones.

This seems somewhat like the FBI and Secret Service inept & incompetent Keystone Kops actions from the 90's when the DMCA was enacted, up to and including going after innocent parties, without evidence, without investigation, based solely on hearsay.

If they are in fact acting outside their jurisdiction, I would hope that EFF and other attorneys give the DHS and ICS a justly deserved roasting in court. But the people who induced the DHS/ICS to do this would get off scot-free, even if they lied to DHS/ICS.

Re:Hoax

[Cylix]

Both godaddy and network solutions are reporting the create date as 11/24/2010 for seizedservers.com.

Everyone know the government does not move quickly. In fact, between purchasing and action I would be damned if they actually did something on time and on budget.

The other issue is there are lots of pretty graphics with all of the domains that are hosted with seizedservers.com. It's like one of those bad scams with information and pictures of pretty places. http://www.dailychanges.com/seizedservers.com/

In every take down instance they have simply flipped off the switch on the domain and took the folks to court.

It's either a hoax for traffic or someone snagged a domain.

Re:Hoax

[memyselfandeye]

I would agree this seems fishy. However as stated in this Directive ICE has the authority to do some fairly clandestine stuff without any approval, such as registering 'fake' domains to poorly beguile terrorists, miscreants, and other groups found the oracle on high deems unworthy. I suppose this could extend to transferring DNS to a sleazy hosting outfit... however I bet this is a little bit closer to home, sleezy outfits seem to attract one another. I seriously doubt DHS and ICE have anything to do with copyright infringement despite claims to the contrary, especially considering at least of the the 'victims' seems to be up and running.

P.S, The FEDs usually fell entire forests when delivering mail informing you of tax violations, compliance violations, legal violations, and penalties. It's usually quite unambiguous.

Re:Hoax

[TheLink]

Ignore this paragrpah: Slashdot says: Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 36.4).
Vestibulum venenatis mauris sit amet augue condimentum convallis. Donec hendrerit fringilla velit id sagittis. Nullam vitae metus sit amet justo malesuada congue. Aliquam eleifend metus sit amet lacus tincidunt nec lacinia dui malesuada. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nam iaculis, lectus nec auctor sollicitudin, arcu ante commodo nunc, in aliquam elit risus at mi. Nullam tempor aliquam accumsan. Nulla facilisi. Donec ac risus in leo rhoncus euismod. Aenean placerat, ipsum eget accumsan rhoncus, erat elit consectetur metus, eget hendrerit lorem arcu ac metus. Nam non turpis ut odio cursus sodales sit amet at diam. Integer a mauris eu lorem placerat imperdiet eget sed erat. Phasellus viverra mauris quis arcu commodo vehicula. Sed vestibulum porttitor semper. Integer nisl massa, aliquet in tempus nec, mattis ut orci.

Try this instead:
1) whois torrent-finder.com
(or http://www.who.is/whois/torrent-finder.com/ if you don't have a cli whois that works)

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.

Domain Name: TORRENT-FINDER.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
Name Server: NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: serverDeleteProhibited
Status: serverTransferProhibited
Status: serverUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 24-nov-2010
Creation Date: 30-dec-2005
Expiration Date: 30-dec-2011

>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 04:02:40 UTC <<<

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the

[lots of legalese deleted]

including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.

Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the "registrant" field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc.
is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database.

Registrant:
Torrent Finder
15 Alexandria St.
N/A
Alexandria, 55555
Egypt

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: TORRENT-FINDER.COM
Created on: 30-Dec-05
Expires on: 30-Dec-11
Last Updated on: 04-Oct-10

Administrative Contact:
Gadelkareem, Waleed kurtubba@gmail.com
Torrent Finder
N/A
N/A
Alexandria, 55555
Egypt
20121578967 Fax -- 2034411838

Technical Contact:
Gadelkareem, Waleed kurtubba@gmail.com
Torrent Finder
N/A
N/A

Re:Hoax

[Cylix]

Confirmed... where confirmed.

You are spouting random giberish and then declared confirmed!

The disinformation in this thread is just appalling, but more concerning are the mods who just up anything that seems serious.

Slippery Slope continues.

[Tovias]

How long before the government takes control of sites that hosts or links to information that the government just doesn't like or deems "unpatriotic"? What kind of oversight is involved before the government can just take down a site? I'm not pro-piracy or advocating it in any way, but I'm definitely all for due process.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Monkeedude1212]

What kind of oversight is involved before the government can just take down a site?

Thats the thing - apparently there isn't any! The site owner didn't know what was going on, and even his web host had to do some investigating to figure it out. If neither of them were adequately informed about whats going on - that suggests some serious inbalance in power. People worried about an Internet Kill Switch? This demonstrates they already effectively have access to such a mechanism.

And given that the site doesn't hosts the files themselves, only links to other sites - NONE of this should have happened. This is no different then me going "Hit Movie Torrent" in Google and clicking on a link that takes me to the sites with Torrents. Why hasn't Google been taken offline? In fact I'm sure most people who want to get into Torrenting go use Google to find the Bittorrent application. Then they use Google to find a torrent site.

It's injustice, they aren't blindly applying law as it should be - they're picking and choosing who they want. And the laws they've posted on the Torrent-finder aren't even relevant! Wilful Copyright infringement: Torrent finder isn't infringing on the copyrights. They are not hosting or distributing them either. Trafficking counterfeit goods - not only is a direct copy of the data not counterfeit but again, they aren't the ones trafficking the data.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[bhagwad]

Isn't due process a constitutionally guaranteed right in the US?

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Monkeedude1212]

It should be. If I were the site owner, I would start a giant lawsuit in the multi-millions for damages caused. Not only for lost traffic (thus lost revenue) but also damages to their reputation.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[jhoegl]

Actually it wasnt the "site owner", it was a DNS redirect. Or in the hacking world a "DNS poison" initiated by the government, owners and controllers of ICANN.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[JWSmythe]

    I'd suspect it won't be very long. The Internet was generally untouchable. With flexing new found power, they will expand the use of it until the people complain too much about it.

    Consider air travel. It went from x-rays and metal detectors, to puff/sniffer rooms to detect for explosives, to full bodyscans and intrusive patdowns. When enough people started refusing to get more radiation on every flight than they get from normal medical screenings, it became a problem. And yes, I'm one of them. I refused standing in the machines, not for the sake of a political stand, but for the sake that it's not necessary. We, a people as a whole, are refusing to submit to the continued abuses, and they realize that they have to back down.

    I guess the question then becomes, what action will the people take about this? Do they passively accept that the government did this for our safety? Then the actions will continue. Soon enough, people will see that sites like this are now directed to seizedservers.com, with two IP's and the web server on the same subnet at CaroNet Managed Hosting, Inc, and the domains are now "owned" by "immexGroup IT Solutions", a government contractor. Expect the DDoS to begin, but not without retaliation by the government.

    Americans have become passivized. They may moan and groan about things that they don't like, but they won't take actions against it. Most likely, users of seized sites will just say "oh, that sucks", and move on to somewhere else, until they find that the other things they enjoy are gone also.

    Slashdot is down the list a bit, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if some folks would like to see it go away. There are the trolls, who can just (and still) be ignored. There are those who preach passive acceptance, which is in the best interest of the government overreaching their powers. And finally, there are some who say "Stand up against what you believe are injustices". If there's anything the government hates more than those who mess with corporate America, it's those who try to suppress the government's uncontrolled powers. And I am one of the later. If you don't like it, stand up against it. Don't just make a little noise. Make a lot. If you do this, you may find yourself with a good number of followers, and you yourself may find yourself participating in government. What would we do with leaders who actually believe in and protect the freedoms of the individuals?

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[dyfet]

I think they pay them in Ireland, actually, and at a nicely reduced rate, too :)

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[marcelC]

ImmixGroup seems to have "been awarded a contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Cyber Crimes Center (C3)" http://www.immixgroup.com/news/pr_display.cfm?ID=117 . That would make a hoax unlikely.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[bhagwad]

Doesn't it require due process in order to label a particular act as criminal in the first place? And doesn't that involve the right to defend your act before it's labelled as criminal?

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Ethidium]

It is, and it's a fair question. Assuming that this is a real seizure and not a hoax, the due process works like this:

0) Somebody allegedly uses property for an illegal purpose. By law, they are deemed to have transferred title to the United States Government by dint of the illegal activity (if in fact the illegal activity can be proved).

1) The government files for a seizure warrant in US District Court. The owner of the property (here, the domain) does not get a say, nor any notice that this is happening.

2) The government seizes the property and provides notice to the owner, if known, and any person who might have a claim on it. For example, if the property is a car with a bank lien, they must notify the owner and the bank.

3a) The government files a complaint for forfeiture in US District Court (or in state court). This is called an "in rem" action--meaning that it's not a lawsuit against an individual, but a suit to determine title to property. The United States claims that it owns the property because of the transfer-by-law that occurred at zero, supra. Anybody who disagrees can stake their claim. The judge determines who gets the stuff.

3b) The government doesn't file anything, and the owner sues the government for a civil rights violation by unlawful taking of property without due process. The suit proceeds as above.

===

The cases determining whether due process has to occur pre-seizure or post-seizure are complicated, and beyond the scope of this author's knowledge or this post.

For reference, I am a lawyer and have posted this explanation based on my legal study, but it should be considered scholarship (information for general knowledge) and not legal advice (information specific to an individual's problems). If you are in need of legal advice, you should consult a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[houghi]

Isn't due process a constitutionally guaranteed right in the US?

This proves that time travel is possible as you have clearly arrived directly from the 1960s. A lot has changed. Perhaps you might feel as if Soviet Russia had won and taken over the USofA, but that is not the case.

Do not be alarmed by strip searches in airports, the government spying on their own people or companies, not people, being the important ones. When you go back to the 1960s, look at all the people you will soon call 'hippies' as it is that generation that is doing this to us.

Perhaps when you go back, you can warn everybody and save us all. Bhagwad: the future of the world lies in your hands.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[slashdotard]

No.

Evade the Constitution by calling it a civil action and then rig the rules to make any defense difficult if not impossible.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea what procedural Due Process actually is?

Legally, it is two things: (a) Notice and (b) the meaningful opportunity to respond.

"... statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result." (Wikipedia)

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Monkeedude1212]

Of course not. But where is it published that the government can hijack the DNS?

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Rich0]

Based on the wording on the notice, if this was actually done by the government it was done under seizure laws.

Seizure is a legal principle where no human being is accused of a crime. Instead, the government files a complaint against the property itself, and then finds it guilty of crime. The constitution only grants human rights to humans, so the theory is that all those constitutional protections don't apply.

The fact that the property actually belongs to a human being isn't of great concern to the courts, apparently.

Of course, this is nothing more than an end-run around due process. If somebody tried to do this back in the 1780s there would have been lots of tar and feathers involved.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[MeatBag PussRocket]

and yet for the sake of campaign contributions corporations are people, funny how that works, eh?

Homeland Security...

[TheLink]

Good to see the US Gov has its priorities right.

I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Re:Homeland Security...

[gstoddart]

I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Have you missed the parts lately where protection of US copyrights is a matter of national security?

Why do you think that god awful ACTRA treaty is being pushed down everyone else's throats?

Expect this to become commonplace -- anything which can deemed to have a primary function of telling people where to download copyrighted works will be squashed quite thoroughly. I fully expect the RIAA/MPAA to allow the rest of us to use the internet under their terms now.

Re:Homeland Security...

[gstoddart]

Is "pushing down everyone throats" the new American general-purpose substitute for "I disagree with this proposal" or does it have meaning beyond that?

First of all, I'm not an American.

Second of all, a treaty which was negotiated in private and the text of the treaty kept secret ... well, not so much with the democratic bits.

Third, there was a lot of pressure from US for other nations to adopt this under threat of trade sanctions. The objections of groups in countries where this was being brought in was more or less ignored.

This is entirely a law that is designed to protect copyright interests, at the insistence of the US, and to the detriment of everybody else. The Internet is now subservient to the RIAA and MPAA, as well as their corresponding lobby groups in other countries -- hell they wrote most of the text, so the law will be stacked in their favor with things like mandatory three strikes laws to cut people off from having internet access.

So, yes, it means a hell of a lot more than "I disagree with this proposal".

Maybe you should do a little research on this heavily contested treaty.

Re:Homeland Security...

[ScrewMaster]

When the rest of the world figures out that they don't need us anymore since we're too broke to buy their products they'll just ignore all the damn treaties and let us sink into failed state status like Afghanistan or Somalia.

If we're lucky, a gang of lawyers will go to China to try to sue and get run over by tanks. That little human rights violation I could live with. Hell, that I'd enjoy.

Hardly. You think that the mindset that created an ACTA only exists in the United States? A lot of Europeans seem to think that (if nothing else, it gives some some more imaginary ammo for America-bashing) but it's just not true. The unfortunate reality is that the corporations behind this aren't (for the most part) even American, so don't expect this to stop should the entire continent of North America vanish from the face of the Earth tomorrow. Europe is on target to be screwed in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reason, by exactly the same people. This particular agenda is put forth by some very powerful multinationals and, to make a long story short, they're criminal assholes who simply do not care who they hurt, whose culture or legal system they damage, as long as they can control distribution of their products as they deem fit. The fact that these plans happen to mesh quite nicely with those of governmental power mongers who, like weeds, seem to spring up pretty much everywhere just makes them easier to ram through.

The human race really needs to start considering megalomania and similar mental conditions as serious disorders, and either find ways to treat them successfully, or simply bar anyone suffering from them from public office, elected or otherwise. There are plenty of competent, sane people to fill those positions, we don't need to select for any of several psychoses. But we do, and the net effect is that we have people who are highly qualified at the process of getting elected, not so qualified at the actual job.

208.100.11.174

[bradley13]

208.100.11.174

Alternative DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe its time to support alternative DNS resolution that is outside of the governments control and possible a network of VPN's or Onion-like routing.

Re:Well let's just fix that.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://torrent-finder.info/
http://208.101.51.57/

same destination

It's all about Money

[bkmoore]

Unless you've been living behind Jupiter, you probably have figured out that the government is for sale to the highest bidder. You can bet that the RIAA, MPA, etc. have all made their political donations and now are cashing in. Most legislation in America is written by lobbyists anyway. But it's nice that the DHS is keeping us safe not just in the skies, but online as well.

Not the hope and change you're looking for

[Anonymous Coward]

$9 million of campaign contributions buys you a lot I guess.

Durr hurr

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner."

When is the nerd class collectively going to get over its spergtastic fantasy that the technical letter of the law is far more important than its intent? (For that matter, how is an iframe not a link, or even opening an iframe showing one not 'providing' it?) This kind of blatant attempt at an end run is the IT equivalent of "I didn't kill him, your Honor, bleeding out killed him" and serves as nothing more than a tacit admission of guilt to anyone who doesn't spend their evenings and weekends fighting holy wars over technical minutiae.

Then again, it's not even relevant in this case, as it appears to be a mass seizure of property held by a group which imports counterfeit goods.

Re:Durr hurr

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

In your analogy, it would be like saying:

"I didn't kill him your honor: all I did was point out who did."

posting a link to other content is not in any way analogous to killing someone. hell, in this case it helped the copyright police FIND the infringers.

to me, this is like taking a Private Investigator to court for "not reporting a crime before it had sufficient evidence to even know what was going on was a crime."

Collecting IP addresses...

[Low Ranked Craig]

Also note that they are also collecting IP address information of people who visit the site...

try { var piwikTracker = Piwik.getTracker(pkBaseURL + "piwik.php", 1); piwikTracker.trackPageView(); piwikTracker.enableLinkTracking(); } catch( err ) {}

They also have google analytics turned on - UA-19806388-1

Re:Collecting IP addresses...

[FooAtWFU]

I have some bad news for you. You don't actually need JavaScript trackers to collect IP addresses of visitors to your website. It happens automatically, really.

Re:Collecting IP addresses...

[flowwolf]

I was under the impression that sites like 4chan did not log IP addresses at all. They make sure there is no logged record of any connections to their servers. This is what I am led to believe anyways.

we need more liberal control

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had a powerful idealogical liberal/progressive government in control, we could halt this wave of warrentless searches and seisures....

O wait... meet the new boss... I forgot.

Re:we need more liberal control

[windcask]

Wake up, man. The rights of the individual are not a partisan issue. Progressives will stand behind you if you want to shit on the Bible or burn the flag, sure, but they'll be the first to sign a bill to keep you from smoking or eating French Fries.

So how does this relate? Neither side really cares about individual rights except when it relates to their talking points or agenda, so don't expect either to be free of the influence of the entertainment industry.

Re:Immigration and Customs Enforcement!?

[bkmoore]

They won't block google because google has made political donations and has some lawyers, probably not as many as Oracle, but enough.

If you want to torrent....

[3seas]

just put "legal" in the name.
try legal torrents in google..

You know...

[windcask]

Usually, I try to find the opposite side of the story and see things from the perspective of the people who are making and enforcing these laws to protect our country and our people's interests.

I got nothing. This is unadulterated bullshit. This basically says that the interests of the music and movie industries are put up on such a high pedestal in this country that they can and will circumvent due process when it suits them.

DAMN YOU GEORGE BUSH!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

I can't wait for Obama to be inaugurated!

If this isn't a hoax...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then it's rather clear that the U.S. gov't is taking advantage of ICANN's incestuous relationship with their benefactor, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Now's the time to seriously start looking at alternative DNS frameworks that aren't whored out to ICANN.

And so it has begun

[nurb432]

Sigh.

Freedom -1. Government +10.

Re:Notification

[rickb928]

Well, the phone +011 20 12 157-8967 would resolve to a mobile number in Egypt, the area code being non location-specific.

+011 20 3 441-1838 (the fax number) would resolve to Alexandria, Egypt, area code 3 and all.

201-215-78967 doesn't work as a DC-area number.

So let's believe the contact data and stipulate that Waleed lives in Egypt.

Also, he registered some other domains that have names consistent with an Arab-based business. And DHS might, just might, have some other interest in an Egyptian web site than just torrents, though the content it linked to might be the problem.

I'm not happy with these confiscations, but this doesn't seem to be as pointless as it might.

Oh well, another great story shot to hell.

EXIF Info

[bruns]

Out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to look at the EXIF information in the big image that was posted?

Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image Created: 2010:11:18 09:37:21

Xmp m m history:
<rdf:Seq><rdf:li stEvt:action="created" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:03801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:46:01-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:04801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:46:51-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:05801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:51:37-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:06801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:57:21-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:07801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:05:28-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:08801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:08:05-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:09801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:13:59-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:0A801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:22:36-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:468E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:31:41-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:478E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:32:55-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:488E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:34:46-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:498E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:35:11-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:4A8E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:37:47-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:4B8E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:41:21-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID

Re:EXIF Info

[metrometro]

Not a lot of Macs at the federal government. And none of them running the latest version of Photoshop. A torrent search engine, on the other hand, may somehow have access to the latest software.

Re:EXIF Info

[Culture20]

It was created on the 10th and edited until the 18th. Don't know of the use, but it might mean something in a timeline.

But Americans *SUPPORT* things like this

[wygit]

Back in September, I used the EFF's Action Center to send a letter to my senators expressing my concerns about COICA and and how much I was against it, (OK, I know it's a futile gesture, but it's something...)
and, about a month later I got this in reply.

"
Thank you for writing to express your support for the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act." I appreciate knowing of your support for this legislation.

America's copyright system is one of our most important economic engines, and giving artists and inventors the incentive to produce cutting edge works is vital to our country. The protection of intellectual property is particularly important to California, which is home to thriving film, music, and high-technology industries. I have worked in the Senate to curtail the theft of copyrighted works, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated.

On September 20, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (S. 3804). You may be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of this bill. This legislation would help address the growing problem of online piracy and copyright infringement by allowing the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down websites selling pirated materials. The bill is currently awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.

Throughout my career, I have consistently supported strong intellectual property protection. I was an original cosponsor of the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. This bill strengthened existing civil and criminal intellectual property laws, increased the resources available to federal and local law enforcement agencies to combat the theft of intellectual property, and created the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The IPEC serves in the Executive Office of the President and chairs an inter-agency committee to produce and implement a joint strategic plan to enforce intellectual property laws.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my staff in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.
"

So I guess, according to her, I'm one of the majority of Americans who support the bill...

Uhhhh no...

[phorm]

And when the server gets bushwhacked instead of the domain, and they move to a new host - but you're still getting the old IP from your hosts file - then what? How about if - rather than an FBI warning or whatever - the site is replaced by a clone that sniffs your info or installs trojans?

Re:Don't use godaddy

[Cederic]

Although traditionally it is common for people on Slashdot to ask "Do you have any references for that unlikely and troll-like statement of alleged fact you just surprised me with?" and [Citation Needed] is a de facto way of expressing such sentiments for illiterate and lazy people.

Dunno how he missed the notice. 'Twas right there!

[Sloppy]

The notice was on display: in an unlit cellar (with no stairs leading to it), in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

Morons.

[unity100]

well done. what have you done ? NOTHING.

it wont take half a day until the backups of those sites are restored in european, russian or chinese domains, in those countries' hosting outlets, and tracking just like how they did before.

you morons not only cost u.s. the control of internet, and made ICANN come out like a lapdog of american government, instead of an INTERNATIONAL corporation you were pretending it to be, but also cost innumerable small and medium size web hosting and datacenter businesses their customers.

not to mention the effect when that sector shrinks it will affect a lot of jobs, ranging from network administration, to tech support, web development to web design.

morons.

Re:too popular, you get killed

[bjourne]

Just don't do business with American hosting companies. The government may not realize it, but in the long run, the only ones who'll suffer from fucked up decisions like this one is the IT industry.