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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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...

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.