US Government Domain Seizures Failing Miserably

ktetch-pirate writes "Operation In Our Sites, a US Government-led domain seizure action to deal with piracy, is pretty much a failure. TorrentFreak has examined a significant number of sites that have gone on pretty much unhindered, despite the seizures. Already some questions have been asked about the constitutionality of the seizures, and the evidence used as justification, but it seems the end results weren't as good as boasted either."

Comments

"Questions asked about constitutionality."

[Seumas]

When the government does it, that means that it is not illegal.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality."

[Anonymous Coward]

That worked well for him, I recall.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality."

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it's worked fine for every President since.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality."

[Anonymous Coward]

When the government does it, that means that it is not illegal.

so all we need to do is convince the government to smoke weed.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality."

[dkleinsc]

so all we need to do is convince the government to smoke weed.

Judging by what passes for political debate and decisionmaking these days, I think it's safe to say that they already do, along with just about every other mind-altering substance out there.

However, you should also realize that the corollary to Nixon's theory of crime is that when your average Joe does what the government just did, it's still illegal.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality."

[Deefburger]

But it can still be un-lawful. The big difference is that the government itself determines legality via it's legislation and courts, whereas the law is discovered in the tangible and natural reality, not the governments verbiage. It is unlawful to take another persons life, it is legal to do so if your legislation justifies it as assassination. It is still un-lawful. It is unlawful to steal another persons property, but it is legal if the government calls the stealing taxation. Legalizing crime is not making the crime lawful. It is attempting to create a legal means to an unlawful end. Failure in the long term is inevitable.

tl;dr

[Hazel Bergeron]

In summary, what this article seems to be saying is, "The lobbyists are not doing a good enough job of pushing for pan-governmental Internet control."

You should also check out just how free the states were 150 years ago from Federal control.

But this is Internet speed.

Give it 15 years.

Re:tl;dr

[L4t3r4lu5]

I think what you mean is:

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore.

Re:tl;dr

[cpu6502]

The censorship in Egypt proved him wrong. They shutdown the internet to local citizens completely, just by telling the ISPs to go offline.

Re:tl;dr

[Hazel Bergeron]

Government interprets freedom fighters as terrorists and shoots into them.

The missing ingredients are technology and jurisdiction.

Slashdotters and the like are providing the former; lawyers and politicians the latter.

Re:tl;dr

[OzPeter]

Government interprets freedom fighters as terrorists and shoots into them.

Except when they are supporting them.

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not get a memorable IP address like 867-5309 (86.7.53.09). It doesn't appear to be in use. Seize that!

Re:tl;dr

[Kjella]

Sometimes there are good governments and bad people.
Sometimes there are bad governments and good people.
Who is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

that was kinda the point dude

Re:tl;dr

[WiglyWorm]

The censorship in Egypt proved him wrong. They shutdown the internet to local citizens completely, just by telling the ISPs to go offline.

Really, that's only half true.

http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/246707,egyptians-turn-to-tor-to-organise-dissent-online.aspx

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sometimes there are good governments and bad people"

Name one example of this.

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

The censorship in Egypt proved him wrong. They shutdown the internet to local citizens completely, just by telling the ISPs to go offline.

And how'd that work out for them?

The government that tried it a couple of years ago got away with it, but the next one was overthrown, and the third one has a civil war on its hands.

Pulling the plug on the internet is a crappy way to stay in power. It just doesn't work.

Re:tl;dr

[mr100percent]

Tor is useless if you can't even get an IP address. They were likely using dialup to other countries

Re:tl;dr

[cultiv8]

Not for those of us who operate a legitimate online business. I couldn't imagine what my customers and clients would say if one day they came to one of my sites and saw a domain seizure image, even if the government did it on accident.

Re:tl;dr

[dave420]

Every single time a democracy is toppled by people seeking a dictatorship. For a list, see a few gleaming gems in the last 100 years of US foreign policy.

Re:tl;dr

[dkleinsc]

The only difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" is that a freedom fighter is on the same side as the speaker, while a terrorist is on the other side.

Similar rules apply to the difference between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation", and a host of other terms regularly used in news and politics.

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm sure George Washington wasn't called the "Father of his Country" in Lord Cornwallis' officers mess.

Re:tl;dr

[c6gunner]

You must be talking about Germany, Japan, and Korea, right?

Re:tl;dr

[KingMotley]

No. A terrorist attacks people that have nothing to do with the military or government in an attempt to cause terror in the public. A freedom fighter MAY also be a terrorist, but not necessarily. One that randomly targets and assassinates military and/or government targets only is not a terrorist.

Re:tl;dr

[JWSmythe]

Pulling the plug on the internet is a crappy way to stay in power. It just doesn't work.

It may be a poor way to stay in power, but it is a proper military tactic. Disrupt their essential services (power, water, food) and communications, and then the enemy is blind and becomes desperate. If the enemy is an attacker, they are more likely to retreat. If the enemy is a defender, they will be more likely to surrender or suffer a total loss.

Re:tl;dr

[Hazel Bergeron]

A terrorist attacks people that have nothing to do with the military or government in an attempt to cause terror in the public.

Such as those who engaged in the bombing of Dresden. A couple of shock-and-awe questions for you:

(1) Can you name one group in the last century which has declared war but which has restricted itself to military and government targets?

(2) Which residents in a country have nothing to do with the military or government?

But the distinction between civilian and soldier is overrated, an artificial construct to dehumanise soldiers and make war seem somehow civilised.

"Terrorist" is a god-disguising synonym for "infidel", holding a similar status in political language as "patriot" and "security". See also USA PATRIOT Act in the US and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in the UK.

Re:tl;dr

[lwsimon]

I disagree. "Terrorist" implies that non-combatants are targeted, using terror as a tool against the general populace to meet a political goal. "Insurgent" would be the non-friendly version of "freedom fighter".

Re:tl;dr

[dkleinsc]

That's not at all consistent with how the word "terrorist" has actually been used.

Some recent attacks generally considered to be "terrorist attacks":
Bombing the US Embassy in Nairobi (government target)
Shooting rockets at the USS Cole (military target)
Shooting at Fort Hood (military base)
Hamas bombing Israeli checkpoints (military / government target)

By contrast, these are not generally considered terrorism, even though they would meet your definition:
US drone attacks on apartment complexes in Yemen and Pakistan
Columbine school shooting

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

c6gunner, if we want the hawkish neocon party line we know where to look. Every opinion you post is entirely predictable and not the least bit insightful. If you really have the beliefs of the persona you paint, couldn't you make the effort to display some deductive or inductive reasoning skills; to contribute with some application of ideas or data; to show some skill more advanced than prattling off your personal bible of precooked prejudice?

But if you have nothing to offer but the role of semi-sentient repeater, have you thought to perhaps just stop posting? We'll not miss anything and you shall have a few extra minutes a day for self-improvement. I'm quite sure you'll benefit.

Re:tl;dr

[dkleinsc]

That only means that I tend to differentiate the terms the same way I just described.

For instance, I'd be relatively inclined to refer to the Libyan rebels as freedom fighters, since they're the product of a failed attempt at peaceful overthrow of a dictator. But somebody who supported Qaddafi would probably call these same people terrorists. Similarly, I'd generally call Osama bin Laden a terrorist, but he would no doubt consider himself a freedom fighter trying to defend his lands against the evil United States.

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" is that a freedom fighter is on the same side as the speaker, while a terrorist is on the other side.

Similar rules apply to the difference between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation", and a host of other terms regularly used in news and politics.

That is a pretty thoughtless comment. If you had to choose between someone drilling holes in your knees with an electric drill (torture) or being forced to be sleep deprived and maybe waterboarded (enhanced interrogation), I think you would indeed appreciate the difference and choose accordingly.

Re:tl;dr

[c6gunner]

Yes, and I'm sure a pedophile would consider himself "friendly with children", and a serial-killer would consider himself "the path to Heaven". Just because some assholes insist on misusing terms doesn't mean that the terms themselves have no meaning. If you fight in order to bring about the imposition of an oppressive theocracy, you are not a freedom fighter. If you generally avoid targeting civilians, you are not a terrorist. Not only is it completely absurd to take a relativist position on the issue, it's inherently immoral as well.

Re:tl;dr

[Hazel Bergeron]

You're asking me to choose between torture and torture. If I have the choice, I'll choose whatever I regard to be the less painful/permanent torture. But I'm still being tortured. Let me rewrite your post, not for you (because I think you're trolling ;-) ) but for those who might entertain the idea that waterboarding is acceptable:

That is a pretty thoughtless comment. If you had to choose between someone slowly roasting you until you die of overheating or organ failure (torture) or someone drilling holes in your knees with an electric drill (enhanced interrogation), I think you would indeed appreciate the difference and choose accordingly.

I can see your world. And in your world torture is legal but each method has a point value. Bureaucrats are allowed to authorise torture of suspects providing the total number of torture points per unit time does not exceed some arbitrarily defined limit (increased for terrorists or in times of perpetual war).

Were you expecting the Spanish Inquisition? The Inquisition was not allowed to cause the victim to bleed externally. Because, goodness, that's torture. Everything else, of course, is just enhanced interrogation.

Re:tl;dr

[omglolbah]

Dialup to other countries is still internet though, and IS routing around the damage.

Badly, but still...

Re:tl;dr

[Requiem18th]

Bullshit. Never have I seen a government more moral than its people.

Re:tl;dr

[dkleinsc]

If you fight in order to bring about the imposition of an oppressive theocracy, you are not a freedom fighter. If you generally avoid targeting civilians, you are not a terrorist.

What if you fight in order to oppose an oppressive theocracy, but you do target civilians (who maybe are connected to the oppressive theocracy but not actually part of their military forces)? That's not an idle question, because US aerial drone attacks have done precisely that in Pakistan and Yemen.

Similarly, what if you aren't targeting civilians, but are fighting for the imposition of an oppressive theocracy? Again, not an idle question, when you consider that many of the Iraqi insurgent attacks on US troops fall into this category.

It's not that I have no morals at all, it's that I judge actions in a way that doesn't neatly divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", and don't assume that everything that good guys do is good and everything that bad guys do is bad.

Re:tl;dr

[mldi]

Kind of like blowing on hot coals?

Re:tl;dr

[c6gunner]

What if you fight in order to oppose an oppressive theocracy, but you do target civilians (who maybe are connected to the oppressive theocracy but not actually part of their military forces)? That's not an idle question, because US aerial drone attacks have done precisely that in Pakistan and Yemen.

I said "generally". Even during the American war of independence, some Brit civilians were killed by the separatists. While I don't like such exceptions, I understand that they are sometimes necessary. In this particular case, it could be avoided if Pakistan could control their own tribal areas, or if they'd allow foreign troops to operate in the borderlands unimpeded, but their need to "safe face" is, apparently, worth a bunch of civilian lives. Still, that's a far cry from executing entire families and terrorizing entire villages as a matter of policy, in order to intimidate the rest into obeying you.

Similarly, what if you aren't targeting civilians, but are fighting for the imposition of an oppressive theocracy? Again, not an idle question, when you consider that many of the Iraqi insurgent attacks on US troops fall into this category.

How is this difficult to understand? I already answered this earlier, and I honestly don't see how you could be confused about what I said.

It's not that I have no morals at all, it's that I judge actions in a way that doesn't neatly divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys", and don't assume that everything that good guys do is good and everything that bad guys do is bad.

Who said anything about neatly dividing the world?

It's as if you were claiming that there's no difference between fish and mammals because the real world isn't simple, and you like to file them into more categories. The fact that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a person or a group of people are "good" or "bad". Hitler was immoral (aka "bad") regardless of how nice he may have been that one time when he returned a lost puppy. Gandhi was moral (aka "good") despite the fact that he viewed blacks as undeserving of the same rights that he spent his life fighting for. You're dismissing an entire classification because of the existence of anomalies; foolish, at best, and immoral at worst.

Re:tl;dr

[GeorgeS]

I couldn't imagine running an on-line business and not having some sort of back-up plan in place in case the US government did make a mistake or just decided to seize my registrars servers for some reason.

Full disclosure before I continue....I run 2 of the Cesidian Root Servers

I also know that as long as my site has an IP address and a net connection my "customers" and the rest of the Internet will be able to access my systems. I am NOT dependent on ANY US based ICANN root server to keep my sites on-line and my business operating and/or making a profit.
I often wonder if ANY shareholders are aware of these critical flaws in nearly all companies on-line infrastructure !!....once those caches time-out your on-line
business is DEAD...period!...NO DNS = No more money to PAY CEO's bonuses and to pay dividends to shareholders.
How much has your company spent on back-up systems and redundant net links? will any of it matter if your customers can't reach the site? I would sure hate
to be the head of an IT department if my domains got pulled and the CEO, Board of Directors, shareholders and customers couldn't get their e-mail

The Cesidian Root was crucial in keeping the wikileaks.org domain on-line after the seizure and since we have root servers world-wide now, no government
can take down any domain or TLD we serve.
We also offer TLD's that you won't find available on any ICANN server and if you really need it we can provide you with a custom TLD.

Re:tl;dr

[bennett000]

Morality is just as subjective as 'freedom fighter'. The power of these words comes from the context of the zeitgeist.

Re:tl;dr

[c6gunner]

Everything in the universe is subjective, if you're willing to take the claims of lunatics at face value.

Re:tl;dr

[Anonymous Coward]

Disconnecting your country from the Internet is nearly impossible for any developed country. Even in "developing" countries permanent disconnection is a challenge. If Cuba, China, Lybia and other countries are online today where the government would prefer to stay offline then you know it is having an impact. You can only keep your country offline for so long unless you intend to turn it into a poor third world nation. Even in places like North Korea you see some Internet access. The less Internet you have the worse off your country is.

Re:tl;dr

[dave420]

No. You should read more.

Rojadirecta.es

[Cigarra]

Of course it's a failure. Everyone I know went from using Rojadirecta.com to Rojadirecta.es to watch soccer games online. Not a problem at all.

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[Inda]

Same with Empornium.

One day I find it's been taken down. Googled "Empornium", found a news item with a list of 15 other trackers I'd never heard of.

Sometimes you cannot fight fire with fire, you have to use water.

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[captainpanic]

Of course it's a failure. Everyone I know went from using Rojadirecta.com to Rojadirecta.es to watch soccer games online. Not a problem at all.

Where 1 gets taken down, 10 new ones emerge.

Fell one giant tree, 10 new trees start to grow.
Kill Napster, and 10 new download programs emerged.
Kill tvshack, and 10 new streaming databases emerge. Fastpasstv.eu, project free tv, etc.

p.s. I didn't know Rojadirecta :-)

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[L4t3r4lu5]

I've never heard of this site before. Streissand effect?

Oh, wait, I don't watch football. In fact, I hate football. Does that mean that I am a case study for the effects of piracy on sales figures? If I watch a match on that site, it is certainly not a lost ticket sale / sports package subscription / PPV fee.

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill tvshack, and 10 new streaming databases emerge>

Like http://tvshack.bz/ ? ;)

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[Anonymous Coward]

No it probably isn't an actual lost sale to them, but it might be a lost sale to whatever other hobby/entertainment that you would have consumed when instead you spent time viewing something that was free.

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitting quietly in your room is piracy! Inactivity should be made illegal! All citizens must live active lives as consumers, for the good of the economy!

Re:Rojadirecta.es

[Zontar The Mindless]

All citizens must live active lives as consumers, for the good of the economy!

Is that you, George Bush?

Pffft...

[TheSpoom]

As if they care about actual results. The people behind this will commission their own review with their own predetermined successful results when they're ready to ask for more funding.

Re:Pffft...

[mescobal]

Agree. The fact that they can do it at all IS the success. Other things will come with time.

The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[erroneus]

The practice of seizure of land, cash and other assets based only on suspicion of connection with illegal drugs is still going on to this day. It is riddled with constitutional problems and yet here we are, decades later, the practice still going on.

The airport screening efforts, though more "formalized" only exposes the stupidity of the whole thing. By most definitions, a failure but it continues.

It's nice to identify things as not working, but it has to be admitted to be a failure by the people who made it happen and then stopped. It is not a failure as it represents to the public "we are doing the best we can" so that the question "why didn't you try something?" gets asked, they can point to this -- failure or not -- as an attempt to "do something."

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[airfoobar]

Unlike with the war on drugs, the war on piracy has no mothers to say "look what happened to my son!" and demand explanations, there are no mafia-funding drug-dealers and no junkies with sharp things. The only ones demanding explanations are corporate lobbyists and the occasional filthy rich superstar. As far as the public goes, the parts who know and care at least, hundreds of millions of people are being persecuted globally because a few overprivileged rich guys want their stupid business models protected.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[circletimessquare]

if you ever going to defeat any of the issues you complain about you have to develop a philosophy slighter deeper than "the government is evil, man"

the war on drugs has nothing to do with piracy. nothing. unless you are a stoned philosophy major. yes, then of course, it is the same thing. but if you understand how and why we are talking about different issues, you can begin to change the world. but if you continue to insist on the most broad of equivalencies, you're just another idiot who will never make a difference

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[Curunir_wolf]

As far as the public goes, the parts who know and care at least, hundreds of millions of people are being persecuted globally because a few overprivileged rich guys want their stupid business models protected.

That sounds a lot like the Federal Reserve banking system.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[Curunir_wolf]

the war on drugs has nothing to do with piracy. nothing.

Unless you consider that they are both tyrannical government programs that target participants of a black market in order to protect wealthy special interests, then, yes, you're right.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[hairyfeet]

It comes down to profits, which is EXACTLY what he was saying! The prisons? They're being privatized, and they don't make money on empty beds. More prisons, more profits, which equals more kickbacks. And how do you think certain three letter agencies pay for their dirty off the books black ops shit? Give ya a hint, they were landing C130s filled with sacks of coke and flown by the military in Mena AR in the 80s. profits from that coke? That don't show up on any congressional reports, they can do with it what they will...bribe, pay for hits, anything you please.

And as far as "making a difference"? Until the masses in the USA are ready to pull our own Egypt (which I give a decade tops) the simple fact is you won't make a difference not in the system, because it takes 50 million just to run for congress so they are bought before a single vote is cast sorry. Hows that hope and change working out? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. ANY lobbyist with the ability to write big fat checks will get more laws in a day than you can in a decade and thanks to SCOTUS they are now people too, so they are just like you only better!

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[circletimessquare]

when someone is skewering a uselessly broad way of thinking about problems, it helps not to respond to their comment by being "exhibit a" of exactly the kind of idiot they are talking about

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[circletimessquare]

i'm trying hard to figure out if you are satire of the useless "government is evil, man" crackpot i am talking about, or an actual crackpot. people need to label their sarcasm nowadays. on the internats, there's no way to tell lampoon from reality

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[Anonymous Coward]

ur face is uselessly broad

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[Anonymous Coward]

circletimessquare: exhibit A of every idiot who thinks he's smart but isn't

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to see any implemented Government policy that is on the mark. I mean, all other scenarios vetted, what we're implementing here is as good as it gets. I'm of the strict opinion that policy isn't implemented to be efficient, accurate, or fully functional. Merely a least common denominator to point at and use as a stepping stone for furture funding. Big Business, and Big Government, work hand in hand to make sure this is s.o.p.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[aekafan]

D@#m, you mean there actually is someone on this government kissing website that actually understands how poisonous some government institutions are? Wow, wish I had mods points. Thank you, sir, for giving a little bit of hope for the human condition.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[Hatta]

As far as the public goes, the parts who know and care at least, hundreds of millions of people are being persecuted globally because a few overprivileged rich guys want their stupid business models protected.

Unfortunately, the ones who know and care are a very small minority. Look at the public opinion on most gaming sites on Sony vs Hotz, for instance. Bunch of dumb kids blaming Hotz for cheating on online games, and ready to sacrifice basic property rights to deal with it. Sickening.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[lwsimon]

Any citation on that reference to Mena?

I live fairly near there, and have several close friends in the area. Never heard of such.

I *have* seen some interesting things in north central AR - but I've always chalked that up to being a Cold War-era storage facility being in the area. Lots of covered 2.5 ton trucks driving by at 2:00 am, and coming back unloaded an hour later.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[WNight]

You said they had nothing to do with each other. You were proved wrong.

You're evidently some useless crackpot who can't tell "similar" from "same".

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so?

[hairyfeet]

Sure thing friend, here you go. Now this is a review about a documentary covering the Mena CIA drug trade, but I'm sure if you hit the torrents you can find the original source. I know it was pretty common knowledge amongst the cops and my friends working in the military, and it especially pissed off the cops as it caused a shitload of high quality coke to flood the market causing ODs all over the place.

But hell I don't need documentary to tell me what's what, I see it every week. My old building is right in the middle, with the good side of town on the left, bad side on the right. I can set my watch by the cop going down the street to a house about 6 blocks from here. Why? Because he is picking up his payoff from MR Dope Dealer, that's why. hell I've watched as they counted the money in the parking lot, they don't exactly hide that shit. Traveling with a little band all over the south I see the same thing all along the "meth highway" as it is called, pretty common knowledge.

You think the gov would have ANY problem actually find the crooked cops? Hell they live like Tony Montana! Nope the simple fact is they don't give a fuck as you need a way to keep those masses of poor in line, and drugs work great for that. I promise you any place where the peasants are starting to get unruly a flood of cheap drugs will blanket the entire market. It is just an easy way to control, and also to raise money for nasty shit they don't want on the books. Don't delude yourself, we've pretty much been the bad guys since the end of WWII.

FTP Warez Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember back in the day when you had to hang out in IRC channels and share FTP warez server lists. Maybe it'll revert back to that.

Re:FTP Warez Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are DDC servers still being used for warez? Feds/business ignored them, just like Usenet.

Re:FTP Warez Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm... meant to type DCC :(.

Re:FTP Warez Servers

[westlake]

I remember back in the day when you had to hang out in IRC channels and share FTP warez server lists. Maybe it'll revert back to that.

When was the last time you saw anyone but a geek install an IRC chat or FTP client?

"Security through obscurity."

A return to a level of complexity the masses abandoned along about the time dial-up AOL was in its prime.

To sum it up

[Anonymous Coward]

- Violation of the right to due process: domain owners who are victim of the US government are not given explanations and they are expected to prove their innocence if they want their domain back. Not only is this unfair, but whatever country you live in you really do need to worry when your government rapes its Constitution and laws and decides it can do as it pleases. On top of this, it created a huge loophole where those seizures could be used to target specific people, businesses or websites for reasons those seizures were not made for.
- Too many errors, some very serious. Not only were innocent websites taken over, but some of them were outright falsely accused of hosting pedophile content - this damage is impossible to fix, even if a judge rules the accusation was a mistake your reputation will forever suffer from this.
- Taking over "US-owned" domains failed miserably - foreign 'illegal' websites were still doing fine (as the present article says)
- Taking over domains was inconsistent and arbitrary: some were prime targets while others were ignored for no apparent reasons. I don't know about the USA but many countries require the authorities to treat crime equally and logically. In those countries more serious offenders can get priority, but it would not be OK to seize a domain because the website hosted one song while another websites that hosts thousands of songs is ignored. Selective Justice should not happen, everyone must respect the same laws and must respect them equally.

Creative Solutions

[Spad]

With all the side-channels, like Twitter, available these days, it's trivial to communicate a change of domain to your users, but if you're creative then you don't even have to do that. A few sites now, notably Newzbin.com have started using Tor hidden services to make domain seizures a non-issue.

As with any arms race, all you really achieve is creating some really neat new technologies and methods to get one over on the other guy.

Re:Creative Solutions

[Dexter Herbivore]

As with any arms race, all you really achieve is creating some really neat new technologies and methods to get one over on the other guy.

As with any arms race, the "defender" is one step behind the "attacker". New technologies have to be invented before they can be countered, as a general rule.

Re:Creative Solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

As with any arms race, the "defender" is one step behind the "attacker". New technologies have to be invented before they can be countered, as a general rule.

That is unless the attacker does not (sufficiently) understand current technologies and implements weak and/or fundamentally flawed forms of "attack".

I can think of dozens of internet-related measures governments have thought up or implemented, and not a single one of those would require fancy new technologies to be rendered useless.

Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/washington/enemies.asp

Re:Hoax

[whitehaint]

WTH? Now religion gets you hyphenated status?

Re:Hoax

[ElectricTurtle]

So are you a bigot who denies that there are ethnic Jews, or just stupid? Jews and Judaism may frequently overlap, but they are not one and the same.

Thanks MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for your greed and shortsightedness, we wouldn't have had the idea to start developing p2p-dns, and form groups like Anonops, who protests your immoral actions. Necessity really is the mother of invention.

Re:Thanks MAFIAA

[metacell]

So maybe we should thank the MAFIAA for preparing us for when the state tries to suppress free speech?

Re:YAY !! SLASHDOT AFFIRMS BAD GUYS WINING IS GOOD

[Spad]

Pretty much.

Remove "Domain Seizures" from headline

[Anonymous Coward]

and it's even more true.

Effectiveness?

[dragonhunter21]

So this campaign not only targeted sites that weren't offending, but was also ineffective against the actual violators?

There we are, I guess.

Re:Effectiveness?

[Krneki]

Yap and in he process it made the US, again, look like a nazi regime.

Re:Effectiveness?

[Anonymous Coward]

its not fascism when we do it

Re:YAY !! SLASHDOT AFFIRMS BAD GUYS WINING IS GOOD

[flonker]

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.

Re:FP

[Luckyo]

Agreed. Scum like you should be "cleaned off the internet".

natives.pres.camp; it began with us, remember

[Anonymous Coward]

other beginnings can be known watching the feature film 'unrepentant'. babys rule now (natives help). disarm. that's our campaign slowgain too. after we stop killing each other by others' whims/demands/usury set upon us, the weather will improve.

not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[decora]

i guess a two trillion dollar black hole in the world economy is not as important as some kids ripping brittney spears songs

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[Narcocide]

Please. Most if not all of that "two trillion" dollars is caused by megacorps like GE avoiding their taxes. The system only works if everyone plays by the rules, and blaming all the damage caused on some children stealing media they wouldn't be otherwise able to afford anyway is a pretty pathetic attempt to pass the buck and you know it.

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOOSH.

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[Narcocide]

woops, sorry

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's all evil corps not paying their taxes. Let's run the math, shall we?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

Oops. Isn't it annoying when reality goes against your pity soundbites?

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[Narcocide]

No, I just didn't actually know what a CDO is and should have looked it up instead of not paying attention to the title on the original post. I merely misunderstood the point being made and spoke out of turn, sorry.

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[BoberFett]

How is GE avoiding taxes? If congress wanted GE to pay taxes, they shouldn't have carefully and specifically crafted a law stating that they don't have to pay taxes, donchathink?

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry

[Narcocide]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Its all over the news. Not just NY Times either. If you're gonna lambast me for the accuracy of my post at least get it right and lambast me for not knowing what a CDO is before popping off, instead of splitting hairs about something they've *all* been doing since well *BEFORE* such a law was explicitly put into place and that needs to be marked [citation needed] anyway. FYI I now agree with the original post having been informed of my lack of understanding of its context.

ha ha

[decora]

everyone must be under the same law? how quaint!!!

trailer park moms with a few ounces of pot get years in prison,

cocaine using prostitution beating hedge fund managers who rip off 500 million dollars get mansions and hang out with Bill Clinton

Re:ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone must be under the same law? how quaint!!!

trailer park moms with a few ounces of pot get years in prison,

I about choked on my dinner the other day while watching Fox News. Bill O'Reilly was whining about Willie Nelson getting out of another possession charge. His Legal pair of token breasts, err I mean "Commentator", said "It's just a minor possession charge, all he had was a few ounces."

Now, in most states even a single ounce is a Felony quantity, and in some cases anything over an ounce is legally assumed to be "for distribution or sale" which is a whole new pile of charges and penalties.

Just goes to show if you have power, money, political influence, etc. you can do pretty much whatever you want. You know, freedom for the Rich- Fuck the Poor.

Re:ha ha

[Attila Dimedici]

cocaine using prostitution beating hedge fund managers who rip off 500 million dollars get mansions and hang out with Bill Clinton

If you are referring to Jeffrey Epstein, he is also legally a pedophile (although I believe that technically the correct term would be pederast). Of course, I am pretty sure the reason that he got off with just a slap on the wrist is because so many influential people probably also had sex with some of his underage "servants" and if Epstein had received the sentence he deserved it is likely that he would have revealed who all made use of the services of those girls.

Re:ha ha

[LoganDzwon]

pedophile, no he liked them young, but not pre-adolescent, (13-20). pederast, no they were female. I think the word for were looking for is ephebophile. (an adult that predominantly is sexually attracted to 14-19 year olds.)

Re:ha ha

[LoganDzwon]

First let me say, I personally do not agreeing with this argument, but I understand the rational. Your example is not is not in-congruent with the "everyone the same under the law" ideal... (assuming you believe in capitalism.) -trailer park moms with a few ounces of pot does not profile much to the community and society, she does contribute to illegal trade. -cocaine using prostitute beating hedge fund manager directly trades large amount funds to generate trade directly benefiting his community with business development and growth creating jobs and other benefits to the community. He does contribute a little to illegal trade as well, and beats up criminals attempting to trade illicit services. weighted out, percent of good/bad, the trailer park mom is doing much more damage to the community, per unit of effect on the community.

Re:ha ha

[Hatta]

This argument is total bunk. The punishment is for the crime, not for the sum total of the individual. In a court, the same crime should yield the same punishment. Society can mete out rewards and punishment for other desirable and undesirable behavior in other ways.

e.g. If I'm a hedge fund manager who gets busted with drugs, A) I get paid a lot and B) I get thrown in jail. If I'm a trailer park resident who gets busted with drugs, A) I don't get paid much and B) I get thrown in jail. The hedge fund manager is still ahead. Voila, equal protection under the law and meritocracy are both preserved.

We assume for the sake of argument here that a hedge fund manager actually contributes positively to society. This is of course not actually the case.

Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

"US Government <insert program here> Failing Miserably"

If you expect something different, then there's something wrong with you.

Re:Of course.

[Wolvenhaven]

My modpoints they gave me on april fools expired today, or I would have given you a +1.

Re:FP

[clang_jangle]

Sadly, it isn't yet legal to exterminate the members of the **AA. Otherwise, I'm right there with ya...

Re:Not a failure

[kno3]

It's not a failure if you're in the business of government. When you're spending other people's money, it hardly matters whether you "succeed" or "fail". What matters is that the money passes through your hands, giving you a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. At the top of the pyramid, ANY expansion of cash flow is desirable, no matter what the consequences. Your time in power won't last forever, and you've got to move if you want to exploit it. This domain-seizure program pales in comparison to the death, destruction, and injustice caused by drug prohibition, but the goal is essentially the same: justification for spending, borrowing, and generally expanding the business of government.

You're not in the business of government, are you?

[Citation Needed]

And the internet as a whole responded

[Drakkenmensch]

Well, duh. It should come as no surprise that trying to seize entire domains to crack down on a single offender would fail both on an operational and PR level. Can you imagine what would happen if the police tried to stop crystal meth trafficking by shutting down entire neighbourhoods based on the mere suspicion that someone might be renting a room to a meth lab? The criminal would have no trouble relocating in a hurry, leaving dozens of irate home owners to vent their fury on the public place.

Change of Address

[Malties]

Seizing the domains would be like an operation to cleanup the drug problem. Have the Postal Office change the address of all of the crack houses. Then no one can find them anymore. Problem Solved

Re:Not a failure

[Entrope]

You want citations?

Read any of Radley Balko's reporting on the War on Drugs (the "Studies" section of that page is a good place to start).

Reason Magazine has a number of articles on how asset forfeiture laws let cops seize things from innocent people and keep them (or auction the things to buy new toys), and how little traction the victims of the seizures get from the legal system.

If you would like more general examples, read this book.

Re:Not a failure

[Curunir_wolf]

Quite insightful, sir. Too bad it's posted on a site where people will defend every last government program from spending cuts until the entire country is bankrupt.

Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

YEAH, THAT SURE WORKED.

Where were you when they were STILL communicating with the outside world?
As long as a country shares physical borders with another country, they can quite easily be used by others to help those being censored to regain connection to the outside world.
In fact, even one without physical borders with other countries, they can still communicate other ways, satellite was being used at one point I'm sure.

This proved him RIGHT. You try to censor in the internet age, you are plain retarded.
Even China can't censor 100%, despite having one of the best firewalls ever made.
Yeah, to the simple people, they'll see only stuff China wants them to see while in their (literal) walls, but something with a decent understanding on networking, encryption, and history of internet censorship techniques can punch a hole through the wall easily.

Re:Nope.

[not flu]

It is alright if the dedicated 1% (and this is a generous estimate) can work around the censorship. As long as most people don't do it, what good does it do to them? The size of the technically knowledgeable and strongly motivated population is small enough that they can't do much by themselves - moreover, as long as they are preoccupied with overcoming technical hurdles they'll be less efficient at what they actually want to accomplish.

Re:Nope.

[nabsltd]

It is alright if the dedicated 1% (and this is a generous estimate) can work around the censorship. As long as most people don't do it, what good does it do to them?

Censorship is like DRM...if it is not 100% effective, then it's a complete failure.

Just like all it takes is one person to crack the DRM and share the unprotected content, all it takes is one person who can get through the "Great Firewall" and acquire non-censored information to spread via sneakernet.

How'd they continue?

[mr100percent]

First, this hasn't just been targeting Piracy, AnonOps.ru was briefly seized as well (DHS logo and everything), but it seems to be back up now.

Second, how did the sites continue? Just move to a new domain name? Tell people to go straight to the IP address?

Re:How'd they continue?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess would be the IP address as a stopgap, and then a new domain name within a day or two. It's not hard to set that stuff up.

I blame Chuck-e-Cheese & similar

[GameboyRMH]

You see, when kids grow up playing Whack-a-mole at such places, the game plays with limited run time, and if they whack enough moles before the time runs out, they win some tickets or whatever. This gives a false impression that whack-a-mole is a game worth playing, and these kids grow up to be politicians.

It needs to be changed, for the good of mankind. The game should run forever and never give out prizes, and the moles should laugh at the player, like the dog from Duck Hunt. Kids should be allowed to walk up to it and whack moles until they get tired. It will teach an important life lesson, and also serve as a little entertainment for the less wealthy kids who couldn't afford too many tokens (which again, will help prepare them for their adulthood of working a long boring grind for the reward of merely supporting their current lifestyle).

Re:I blame Chuck-e-Cheese & similar

[Daniel_Staal]

We don't need to go quite that sadistic, and we can still make it realistic.

Here's my version: It starts with one mole. It comes up or goes down, on a random schedule. If you hit it, you now have two moles, and they tend to stay up more. Hit one of them, same thing happens again.

Prizes go out if there are no moles up at the end of the set timeframe.

Operation "In Our Sites"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule of thumb: The cuter the name of the so-called Operation, the dumber and more likely to fail it is.

If at first you don't succeed...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the US government's first try at this. They will adapt. I know it's tempting to poke fun at incompetent attempts to throttle the internet, but a more effective response would be to figure out how they'll adapt, and how we can adapt to their adaptation.

The people who want to bend the internet to the service of companies and politicians have a lot of money and motivation. That combination usually gets results, eventually.

Re:Not a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite insightful, sir. Too bad it's posted on a site where people will defend every last government program from spending cuts until the entire country is bankrupt.

Uh, you posted that comment on Slashdot. Where did you mean to post it?

Hairyfeet's "GREATEST HITS" (lol - NOT!)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

---

Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

---

Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

and

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

as well as this:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

---

Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

---

Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

---

Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

---

The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

---

They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).

APK

P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you, he's out money...apk

Hairyfeet's "GREATEST HITS" (lol - NOT)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

---

Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

---

Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

---

Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

---

Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

and

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

as well as this:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

---

Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

---

The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

---

They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).

APK

P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?

Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk

this is slashdot. never apologize.

[decora]

dude you apologized for being wrong on slashdot.

i think that violates some kind of fundamental rule or something.

jesus you did it again!

now that you mention it, he was into CDOs....

[decora]

jeffrey epstein actually had an investment with one of the Bear Stearns hedge funds that blew up in 2007... those funds were filled to the brim with shitty CDOs and were one of the first signs that the industry was coming unglued.