First Challenge To US Domain Seizures Filed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Challenge To US Domain Seizures Filed

Posted by Soulskill on Monday June 13, 2011 @09:17AM from the amicus-briefs-at-dawn dept.

An anonymous reader writes "You may recall that the US government, mainly through Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division (ICE) has been seizing domain names over the past year, based on bad evidence, even leading to the 'accidental' seizure of 84,000 sites. While it has taken some time, the first challenge has been filed to the domain seizures, by the company Puerto 80, who runs Rojadirecta, a Spanish internet forum that was seized because users linked to streaming sporting events. Rojadirecta was declared perfectly legal (twice!) in Spain, but the challenge obviously focuses on US law, and how the seizure was improper and did not meet the qualifications for a seizure, how the seizure violates the First Amendment by being improper prior restraint on protected speech, and how Rojadirecta is not guilty of criminal copyright infringement. This could represent a very important case in determining the government's legal right to simply seize domain names."

83 of 119 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

this is just... by David89 · 2011-06-13 09:19 · Score: 1

beautiful

--
Track IP - Remotely track the IP address of a machine via email or MySQL.
Toss up by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-13 09:21 · Score: 1

I could see this case going either way, to be honest.

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Toss up by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2011-06-13 09:23 · Score: 4
  
  Yes, justice is impartial.
  
  --
  I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
2. Re:Toss up by EdIII · 2011-06-13 09:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really?
  It's one way. Give the domains back. The Spanish courts have declared them legal.
  How is the Homeland Security Department funded so well in these trying times that they can afford to seize domains and fight legal battles for IP corporations in fucking Spain?
  That's the fundamentals here folks. This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.
  Let that sink in.
  Then afterwards the rest of the world can get their heads out of their collective asses and take away domain name administration from the US because we clearly do not deserve the ability to do so, and have proven quite remarkably, that we don't have the ethics to do it either.
3. Re:Toss up by Toonol · 2011-06-13 09:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?
  
  Is that a serious question?
  
  The short answer is "Yes." The long answer is "Yes, often, and read some history."
4. Re:Toss up by mistiry · 2011-06-13 09:44 · Score: 2
  
  Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?
  How many times has the Supreme Court ruled 'XYZ Law' as 'Unconstitutional'? Would you not consider that someone successfully challenging the government in a legal battle?
  Government makes law. Citizen challenges law. Law is overturned. Seems like a WIN to me...
5. Re:Toss up by mistiry · 2011-06-13 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the numerous other ways the federal government has lost a legal proceeding.
6. Re:Toss up by kimvette · 2011-06-13 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  It often ends up being a pyrrhic victory though.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
7. Re:Toss up by Kjella · 2011-06-13 09:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.
  And therefore it can't happen? Exhibit 1, history.
  The US has placed half the world on their copyright watch list. And I don't mean rag tag countries like Russia or China but highly developed western countries like Canada and large parts of Europe. They want global IP law and they want to write it. Fits quite nicely with their overall agenda as world police, too. So I wouldn't be surprised if they just kept it, so that keeping a domain name means you have to stay inside both local law and US law. They have the audacity to do it.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
8. Re:Toss up by SaroDarksbane · 2011-06-13 09:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How many times has the Supreme Court ruled 'XYZ Law' as 'Unconstitutional'?
  
  Not nearly enough.
  
  Government: "Hey, you know that section of the constitution that allows us to break down trade barriers and protectionism between the states? Well, we'd like to interpret it in such a manner that gives us the power to tell any citizen in the country to do anything we want, as long as we make vague assurances that it might, in some way, affect some kind of commerce somewhere."
  Court: "Sounds good to me!"
9. Re:Toss up by swb · 2011-06-13 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they give admin rights to Iran. It'll dovetail nicely with Libya having been the head of the UN Human Rights commission.
10. Re:Toss up by mirix · 2011-06-13 10:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  At this point they basically have earth minus the US on the copyright watch list. I'm sure the US would be on the list if it wasn't where they are from, also.
  
  Of the 40 countries listed in the report, the IIPA recommends that 13 be placed on USTR’s “Priority Watch” List in 2011: These include Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand, all carried over from last year, with the additions of Costa Rica, the Philippines, Spain, Ukraine, and Vietnam. The other 27 countries are recommended for the 2011 “Watch” list.
  
  An AC posted this at the time of that story, I thought it was spot on:
  
  so after a few minutes on google it seems that they've put about half (3,225 million) of the world population (6,775 million) on their must watch list. I'm not going to look for the population of the other 27 countries but it wouldn't surprise me if it totals 6,470 million people which is the worlds population minus the USA population.
  Pretty much.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
11. Re:Toss up by MysteriousPreacher · 2011-06-13 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
12. Re:Toss up by sdguero · 2011-06-13 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for depressing me...
13. Re:Toss up by onepoint · 2011-06-13 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  if all the domains are .com's then it's within the rights since it's controlled by an American firm, that's why a few years back they were trying to get rid of that control and have it transferred to Switzerland.
  I wish I had the link reference
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
14. Re:Toss up by Ihmhi · 2011-06-13 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why would the Supreme Court even do this? It baffles me. Wasn't the whole purpose of lifetime appointments to make them incredibly difficult to influence?
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
15. Re:Toss up by Zemran · 2011-06-13 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  And this is because the US has such good clear and well thought out copyright laws...
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
16. Re:Toss up by N+Monkey · 2011-06-13 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!
  I think they'd be of more use watching out for submarine patents.
17. Re:Toss up by hairyfeet · 2011-06-13 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think the better question would be "How long has it been since the courts ruled FOR a citizen AGAINST the corps?" my guess is it has been a pretty damned long time, probably Betamax. I mean when you have a SCOTUS judge's wife taking checks and nobody does shit? Yeah I don't think the odds are good on this one my friend. As much as I'd love to think that We, The People have a say and the courts don't favor the multinationals by a huge amount sadly Citizens United broke me of that particular fantasy.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
18. Re:Toss up by mijelh · 2011-06-13 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Had you read the summary, you'll know that Rojadirecta already fought the [Spanish] government in a legal battle and won. Twice.
19. Re:Toss up by Talderas · 2011-06-14 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  It is arguably due to FDR threatening to essentially destroy the Supreme Court by passing legislation that would increase the number of sitting justices allowing him to pad the court with justices compliant with his viewpoint. Enough justices that would be able to drown out the ones that opposed him.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
20. Re:Toss up by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-06-14 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!
  It happened because the agency in question isn't really an agency in the older sense. It's just an umbrella organization to foster communications within and among a bunch of older agencies.
  Basically, we were surprised by 9/11. Therefore we added an extra layer of bureaucracy to fix the problem.
  Because we all know that any problem can be solved if we have more bureaucrats in the loop.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
21. Re:Toss up by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-06-14 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?
  Heller.
  Remember that little card that the cops carry that they have to read to you verbatim? The one with 'right to remain silent' on it? That's also a result of a case against the government that the government lost.
  And on and on and on....
  Whats amazing is that so few cases are won by the government when they get to the Supremes. Shows the Supremes are, in general, doing their jobs right.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
22. Re:Toss up by Coren22 · 2011-06-14 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  By having a .com, .org, .net or .us address, they are effectively doing business in the US. When you do business in the US, you have to follow US laws. as the web site seized is rojadirecta.org, I don't see a problem here. .org is a TLD of the US. Now, as there is a rojadirecta.es, I don't see what the problem is. Now, if the seizer is overturned (which it should be, a forum where people post is not liable for what is posted...slashdot.org should be just as exempt for all those counterfeit product trolls we have) then that will of course be a good thing.
  To recap, rojadirecra.org is an USA TLD, not a Spanish one, therefore they are subject to the US courts, not the Spanish ones.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
23. Re:Toss up by julesh · 2011-06-14 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.
  I don't think foreign nations enter into the equation here. A domain name, in the end, is a contractual agreement with a registrar to provide resolution services. If that registrar is a US corporation, then the contract is fulfilled in the US and is therefore subject to US law.
  Now, whether the seizures were legal under US law is another matter entirely.
Dear U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 09:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Stop trying to fucking police the whole godamn planet on all levels.
Besides entertainment and some software development, you are now irrelevant.
Signed, everyone.
1. Re:Dear U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Stop trying to fucking police the whole godamn planet on all levels.
  Besides entertainment and some software development, you are now irrelevant.
  Signed, everyone.
  The problem is that it IS entertainment that is behind the whole thing.
  Next time you talk to anyone in the commercialised (*) entertainment industry - make them part of this. Just tell them you don't agree with "you guys" grabbing internet domains. And don't let them slip-and-slide-away ("oh that's not us, that's the government") because we all know the truth.
  (*) this excludes indie music, film, and software developers but people that work for/as RIAA, MPAA and BSA members are explicitly targeted.
2. Re:Dear U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 10:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Dear, everyone:
  We're very sorry. Our current government doesn't represent us. They just do whatever the hell they want, without regard for anything or anyone who didn't contribute massively to their campaigns - especially not our constitution. We can't stop them without a revolution.
  Signed, the U.S.A.
3. Re:Dear U.S.A. by jvillain · 2011-06-13 11:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Amen. What is this "The government just does what they want non-sense. Stop voting for the same two failed parties. Start demonstrating on the lawn of the assemblies. Help to form a new party and fund it, run for office ...
  Or do you mean when you do nothing they keep doing what ever they want?
4. Re:Dear U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  The government doesn't "let" them have guns, their constitution enshrines the right for them to keep and bear arms. This makes it none of the government's business. /No I'm not a US citizen, just a fan of their constitution. If they followed it I think the USA would be a pretty awesome place.
5. Re:Dear U.S.A. by Opportunist · 2011-06-13 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Since laws are remodeled to protect corporate interests more and more, I'd say the two terms will soon become interchangeable.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Dear U.S.A. by vegiVamp · 2011-06-13 19:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Dear U.S.A.,
  You've been claiming this during the previous 8 years of Bush administration, too; which was supposedly from the opposing party. Frankly, we don't see the difference, but that's probably a cultural thing.
  Stop making excuses and get that damn revolution started already, before we are forced to come over and, how do you guys call it, spread some democracy.
  Signed, everyone.
  
  --
  What a depressingly stupid machine.
7. Re:Dear U.S.A. by Coren22 · 2011-06-14 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Dear rest of the world,
  If you want to do business on the internet under your own laws, don't buy a fucking US TLD.
  Signed, the US.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
8. Re:Dear U.S.A. by Shagg · 2011-06-14 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Dear everyone,
  There is no opposing party. It's a one party system, it just has two names.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Hey, I've got an idea.. by intellitech · 2011-06-13 09:28 · Score: 1

How about those working for ICANN grow some balls, and don't cave to every whim of agencies like ICE?

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
1. Re:Hey, I've got an idea.. by chemicaldave · 2011-06-13 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's much easier to let someone else go to court than to be detained for "obstruction of justice" or whatever else DHS and ICE pinned on them.
2. Re:Hey, I've got an idea.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  So if employees of ICANN can be arrested or detained by U.S. law enforcement for obstruction of justice, what is the point of being an international, autonomous organization?
An apology to the international community by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 09:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have to apologize to the international community. When you started clamoring for international control of the domain system, my summary reaction was, "Whiners. Do you seriously not trust the United States to handle DNS in a fair manner? We do not mess with free speech without due process. Would you really trust international oversight more?"
Now I see that the US cannot in fact be trusted to fairly manage the domain system. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry.
1. Re:An apology to the international community by Toonol · 2011-06-13 09:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Now I see that the US cannot in fact be trusted to fairly manage the domain system. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry.
  
  I'm similarly disappointed in the US... but I'm still not sure what nation or organization would be BETTER. UN? EU? Industry organizations? Those would all be even worse.
  
  Heck, I'd rather give it to anonymous to handle.
2. Re:An apology to the international community by Fyzzler · 2011-06-13 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  I sadly have to agree with this post. I too was wrong. DNS needs to be removed from US control.
  
  --
  I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
3. Re:An apology to the international community by mirix · 2011-06-13 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  We should give control to a computer, in a bomb shelter on the novaya zemlya islands, with a HW random number generator that it consults for decisions.
  
  Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.
  
  err, something like that.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
4. Re:An apology to the international community by rahvin112 · 2011-06-13 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  If the US loses control the only organization to handle it would be ITU under the UN. If you think it's bad under the US wait until the worlds dictators have a say under ITU. Domains that are offensive to the world dictators will be revoked, domains that offends Muslims will be revoked. You name it, the system will be destroyed. The solution is a legal block against the US doing what they are doing not to hand the system over to a bunch of nations that don't believe in free speech.
5. Re:An apology to the international community by Vegemeister · 2011-06-13 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  No. Technical solutions are always superior to legal solutions. The solution is weighted web-of-trust DNS, with a great deal of caching.
6. Re:An apology to the international community by JustNiz · 2011-06-13 14:40 · Score: 2
  
  >> hand the system over to a bunch of nations that don't believe in free speech.
  As a Brit now living in the US, I was surprised by the large difference between the EU and the US in what is considered "allowable speech". People are MUCH more restricted in the US than in the EU both by police and worse, societal norms as a whole. Also I was surprised by how US police act like thugs and bullies even as a first response. EU cops wouldn't ever do that.
  For example look what happened at your Lincoln Memorial (more than once apparently):
  http://www.openculture.com/2011/05/dont_dance_at_the_lincoln_memorial.html
  When you Americans say you live in the "The Land of the Free" do you REALLY believe it? If so, you need to get out and see the world and get a reality check for yourselves.
  I'm not saying the EU is perfect, we have our own issues, however in this respect its better.
  At least we can peacefully protest and say what we want without fear that our cops would or could kick our heads in then get away with it.
7. Re:An apology to the international community by gmhowell · 2011-06-13 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  We should give control to a computer, in a bomb shelter on the novaya zemlya islands, with a HW random number generator that it consults for decisions.
  
  Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.
  err, something like that.
  Mein Fuhrer!
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
8. Re:An apology to the international community by pacinpm · 2011-06-13 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  At least we can peacefully protest and say what we want without fear that our cops would or could kick our heads in then get away with it.
  Unless you live in UK:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield
9. Re:An apology to the international community by TheTurtlesMoves · 2011-06-13 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  EU cops wouldn't ever do that.EU cops wouldn't ever do that.
  It not common here. But it does happen. EU cops are thugs sometimes too.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
10. Re:An apology to the international community by JustNiz · 2011-06-14 02:54 · Score: 2
  
  Read your own citation. A later court trial found the police guilty of wrongful arrest, assault and criminal damage.
  Even though US cops apparently often use brutal tactics as a first option, you NEVER see the police in the US getting hauled into court and found guilty of assault.
11. Re:An apology to the international community by JustNiz · 2011-06-14 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  actually let me take that back. I've done some research since I wrote the above response.
  Its not never, its almost never.
12. Re:An apology to the international community by pacinpm · 2011-06-14 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Which doesn't really help if you have got beaten in the first place. Also they weren't really THAT successful:
  
  After four months of hearings, twenty-one of the travellers were successful in their case and were awarded Â£24,000 in damages. The judge refused to award them their legal costs, thereby significantly reducing the amount received.
  Their barrister, Lord Gifford QC (Anthony Maurice Gifford, 6th Baron Gifford), stated "It left a very sour taste in the mouth."
13. Re:An apology to the international community by jahudabudy · 2011-06-15 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  When you Americans say you live in the "The Land of the Free" do you REALLY believe it? If so, you need to get out and see the world and get a reality check for yourselves.
  
  Well, see, back when it was the cops using their "leeway" to roust out the blacks, hippies and other undesirables, that was fine. They didn't used to mess with honest, upright citizens. Then the War on Drugs came along, and everyone became an undesirable. That is why cops so often are thugs and bullies (besides the obvious b/c they can): they are indoctrinated that all citizens, by virtue of not being a cop, are guilty. They are programmed with a "them vs. us" attitude. And they are determined that their "side" will "win".
  
  --
  ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
R.I.P by ForexCoder · 2011-06-13 09:37 · Score: 2

Fourth, Fifth and Six Amendments

12/19/1791 - 1/1/2011

. Requiescat in pace
1. Re:R.I.P by cdrudge · 2011-06-14 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Do the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments apply to non US citizens?
2. Re:R.I.P by julesh · 2011-06-14 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to see how the 4th and 6th apply in this case, to be honest. The fifth is quite clear though:
  
  [...] nor shall any person be [...] deprived of [...] property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  (emphasis mine)
This is why by vga_init · 2011-06-13 09:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is why we don't to have the US in control of the DNS master servers on the Internet. It's high time that we architect a new, global, and decentralized domain name service network that thwarts tampering by any government or institution.
1. Re:This is why by trampel · 2011-06-13 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  I buy the "decentralized" part, but regarding the non-US part: rojadirecta.com has been registered with godaddy.com (a US company for all that I know) since 2005. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that they could have used a non-US registrar, and further assume that that would have made it more difficult to seize the domain.
2. Re:This is why by idontgno · 2011-06-13 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  .com "belongs" to Verisign. I suspect it doesn't matter what sub-registrar you buy your domain from; if it's .com, it's easily in the reach of US law enforcement action, by virtue of ultimately being controlled by a U.S. company whose headquarters is practically within walking distance of the headquarters of the DoJ and ICE.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:This is why by guruevi · 2011-06-13 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's time we started accepting non-ICANN approved TLD's. ICANN is the main problem since it is based in the US. Verisign and 'corporate control' of any TLD is unacceptable.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
4. Re:This is why by melikamp · 2011-06-13 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily decentralized. But thinking that one domain name system would be enough for everyone was clearly a pipe dream. Just one problem from the top of my head is what to do with generic words like "apple", "ford", and "good", or common proper names. What is a fair way to assign "john.net"? FIFO? Surely, you are joking. We were doing great with one authoritative DNS, and we will do even better with several. We actually already have them, but we are slow to realize their name-resolving nature. Wikipedia, Google, Torrentz, or even browser plugins which uncensor domains: they all take short phrases and turn them into links to other pages. DNS was implemented (socially) as a wild wild west land grab (this analogy became complete after rich corporations started hijacking names through courts), and it pretty much reached its full potential by now. Other, more structured name resolvers are coming into spotlight now. A decentralized name system with FIFO registration would be completely useless: it would always remain DNS's uglier sister.
5. Re:This is why by Dan541 · 2011-06-14 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Use a non-us registrar to register the .com .com isn't a United States domain.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
6. Re:This is why by julesh · 2011-06-14 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  And pray tell, how do you get an international domain name such as .com without going through a US registrar? Monopolies are bad.
  I register mine with Total Registrations, who are a UK company. There are several other non-US .com registrars. The government could try exerting influence on ICANN, but in the end *any* domain could be influenced via that route, as ICANN theoretically has the power to reassign TLDs to new registrars who might be more amenable to US government requests.
  This is one of the reasons ICANN needs to be an international body, so that no individual nation is able to exert undue influence on naming systems.
7. Re:This is why by julesh · 2011-06-14 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  They could but the problem would persist because the DNS root servers are in US .
  Erm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Root-current.svg
  Looks like there are root NSs all over the world to me.
I hope they win by danbuter · 2011-06-13 09:41 · Score: 1

I hope Rojadirecta wins this big, and everyone else then files suit and nails the government.
1. Re:I hope they win by evil_aaronm · 2011-06-13 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Only if "the government" refers to the actual assholes pulling this shit, instead of the rest of us tax-payers. I didn't vote for those idiots at ICE: why should I have to pay for their screw-ups?
2. Re:I hope they win by danbuter · 2011-06-13 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's who I was referring to, since they are the government agency in the article.
Dear World by countertrolling · 2011-06-13 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Our lawyers, guns, and money make anything you say or try to do irrelevant... yes, to this day

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
bye by nonicknameavailable · 2011-06-13 10:05 · Score: 1

.com .net .org is going to die slowly because of US domain seizures

--
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
Fund? by v1 · 2011-06-13 10:43 · Score: 1

Any (reputable) place to contribute to this legal fight?

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:Fund? by psyclone · 2011-06-14 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes: https://www.eff.org/
Re: Lawyers guns and money by sconeu · 2011-06-13 11:07 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that the shit has hit the fan?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The government really has no choice. by scotts13 · 2011-06-13 11:20 · Score: 1

In case you haven't noticed, the United States has essentially ceased the manufacture of tangible goods (unless you count foodstuffs). All we really have left to base our wealth upon is intellectual property. Problem is, you point to a hammer and see value: iron, wood, and the energy to mold them. With IP, especially media, the only value is that which the customers choose to give it. We MUST force our laws and perceptions regarding IP on the world. We have no choice.
1. Re:The government really has no choice. by codepigeon · 2011-06-13 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  I feel that the U.S. (my home) having this much control is unacceptable.
  
  In regards to your comment, you are completely wrong. The US still manufactures many things. Trains, Planes, Automobiles, Farming machinery, Space explortation vehicles/bots, etc. Sure we dont make tires or coffe pots, but we have moved on beyond those things. It makes more sense to have developing nations produce those for us.
  
  In the future, those nations will build the planes, trains, etc. And we will be building X.
  
  And yes, we are a leading supplier of food stuffs as well.
2. Re:The government really has no choice. by JustNiz · 2011-06-13 13:31 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the US is the worlds largest manufacturer and exporter of weapons but let's save that for another post.
  It seems to me that when a government itself corrupts own legal system, especially just to further protect already rich mega corporations, you have already lost your country.
Re:I blame President Bush! by Opportunist · 2011-06-13 17:41 · Score: 1

What makes you think the sock puppet matters to the actor?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
how about rojadirecta.es ? by dutchwhizzman · 2011-06-13 18:00 · Score: 1

Rojadirecta is by no means limited in it's ability to free speech. They could easily put another domain name on their servers and be up and about in no time. Yes, it's rather nasty that they had their USA domain confiscated, but since they aren't a USA site, it shouldn't matter that much. It'd be different if they were filtered off the Internet, but some rogue non democratic country seizing a domain name shouldn't stop free speech now, should it?

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Re:Meh I wouldnt worry abouit this fuckwad gmhowel by gmhowell · 2011-06-13 18:17 · Score: 1

Its only APK, he is a well known troll here, don't bother feeding him. He is at war with nearly everyone on Slashdot, and is so stupid he does not realise he is making himself look like a tosser of epic proportions.
But his OCD is much more entertaining to me than Marc Summers'.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Excellent news by dugeen · 2011-06-13 20:45 · Score: 1

It's about time someone fought back against these no-trial, no-evidence seizures.
Critical by xenobyte · 2011-06-13 20:46 · Score: 1

If not the courts strike down the very concept of seizing/stealing domain names the future of the internet is very dark indeed,
None of the laws used to justify this seizure have any moral merit. Why should a company in Spain be subject to some US customs or IP law?
The US waste enormous amounts of money on enforcing the unenforcible, like stupid gaming laws (native Americans can build and run casinos, other Americans cannot, people in the US can gamble in non-American casinos, not in casinos run by or for Americans etc.) or IP laws completely out of date made to protect a business model long obsolete.
Why don't they simply tax the casinos and make part of the taxes go to fighting gambling addiction? - And find a business model for IP that doesn't involve massive efforts in fighting the customers in various courts.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Just dump your US domains. by leftie · 2011-06-13 22:32 · Score: 1

All those domains that do not end in .com work just peachy.
1. Re:Just dump your US domains. by Dan541 · 2011-06-14 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  .com isn't a US domain.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Until the general strikes begin by leftie · 2011-06-13 22:35 · Score: 1

They are not that far off at this rate.
Seizure = War by RockScientist · 2011-06-14 04:30 · Score: 1

IMHO seizing a domain belonging to any individual outside of the United States should constitute an Act of War, provided the domain in question is legally registered locally within the user's own country.
a non-crazy solution by Gravis+Zero · 2011-06-14 05:28 · Score: 1

ok, we all know that there is a single problem here, one location controls every domain name resolution. the idea that _everything_ should be decentralized has plenty of issues. a solution is to have a daemon/service that updates your hosts file/whatever windows uses on a weekly basis (or forced update) from multiple random locations from a list of IPs. the reason for checking multiple locations is that one location could get hacked. so you would need some sort of checksum to quickly check the integrity. more redundancies/checks could be added to prevent interloping.
should such a list become unwieldy, it's clear that a new network needs to emerge as the existing one would be simply corrupt.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.