Inside the DOJ's Domain Name Graveyard

hugheseyau writes "Between November 2010 and May 2011, the US Department of Justice (DoJ), under many banners including the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), seized over 140 domain names from sites allegedly engaged in the 'illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works' or other illegal activities. But what exactly happens when domains are seized in such a manner? This article provides insight into the takedown process as well as providing a unique look into the DoJ's domain name graveyard."

Comments

intellectual property is censorship

[Hazel Bergeron]

Intellectual property is censorship. The First Amendment should be read as an implicit repeal: if only "protected speech" is protected - for example, speaking a derivative work is not regarded as protected - then there is no anti-censorship provision whatever.

The list is about what I expected

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mostly counterfeit goods domains seized, almost nothing for online pirate streaming, though a few of those are there.

But this points out that the DNS system is a weak link, and can no longer be trusted. Something peerless should replace it, but at this point in time, anything that does needs to bridge the existing DNS system.

Re:makes you wonder

[jhoegl]

I would think botnets, spam servers, spam/malware websites (where you go to buy the crap they are peddling) would be higher on the list.
But, I guess scamming people is a "business"...

What happens over time?

[hackertourist]

Will the domain names stay 'seized' forever? Or will the DOJ allow them to be sold at some point in the future, the way other seized assets are sold off?

Re:What happens over time?

[KiloByte]

Until then, please install the MafiaaFire redirector, it handles some of domains stolen by DoJ. You probably won't need any of them and can search for the new URLs in seconds, but it's more about spreading the word.

Re:What happens over time?

[circletimessquare]

i got dibs on "bishoe.com"

for my bisexual shoe fetish site

Re:Ignorance of net neutrality

[fysdt]

Are you telling me that you are perfectly fine with a government that blocks domains because they do not *like* it? What's next?
- Block a domain because it has offended the president
- Block a domain because they are 'against us'
- Block a domain because of activists

and the list goes on...

Ask Slashdot: Mesh DNS Options?

[Bob9113]

Hey, Slashdot; Could you clue me? What is the state of alternative DNS systems, particularly something mesh- or web-of-trust- oriented? Any live systems that are usable now? Any projects that look promising where I could lend a hand with code or whatever?

Re:Ignorance of net neutrality

[fysdt]

Murder is an obvious crime. The people operating these websites did not commit crimes. For example, torrent-finder was taken down by the ICE and this website is not even close to criminal. It is metasearch engine. The DoJ is probably getting lobbied by the MPAA.

Re:Ignorance of net neutrality

[ElectricTurtle]

Wow, that's an awesome strawman. I mean who else would have thought about comparing freedom of expression to violent crime? I suggest you wrap that up and put it in a field somewhere for the crows.

Pssssshhhh

[cultiv8]

Are you saying Google is a good solution to fixing DNS? While Chrome 13 hiding the URL says something about the state of DNS, I don't like the idea of trusting a newer, "better" DNS to any corporate entity...

Re:Ignorance of net neutrality

[houstonbofh]

- Jail a person because they ran over someone else while drunk

If you can run over someone in the US while driving drunk in France, it may be a comparison. However, this is the US going to France and kidnapping the drunk driver for running over someone IN FRANCE. And is still a very bad analogy.

Re:Intent

[GumphMaster]

The article mentioned nothing I could see about the owners and operators of the site being convicted of any crime. That is what disturbs me. Quite aside from the potential future free speech ramifications, the presumption of innocence seems to be forgotten. This really looks like the US Govt. picking up the tab for making inconvenient sites go away so the trademark holders etc. don't have to dip into their precious profits.

Can anyone point to a conviction that lead to this action?

Re:What TLD's can they seize?

[lothos]

Each of the seized domains were using a TLD/ccTLD extension where the registry was in the United States. .cc is administered by Verisign.