Slashdot Mirror


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."

10 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. intellectual property is censorship by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  2. The list is about what I expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. What happens over time? by hackertourist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:What happens over time? by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:What happens over time? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i got dibs on "bishoe.com"

      for my bisexual shoe fetish site

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  4. Re:Ignorance of net neutrality by fysdt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Ignorance of net neutrality by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  6. Pssssshhhh by cultiv8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  7. Re:Ignorance of net neutrality by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    - 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.

  8. Re:Intent by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button