.UK Registrar Offers To Let Police Close Domain

judgecorp writes "The .uk registrar, Nominet, has proposed rules that would give the police powers to demand Internet domains be shut down without a court order, in certain circumstances. The powers were requested by the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and have aroused concern that legitimate sites might be closed on suspicion of wrongdoing. Nominet's suggested implementation is online for public consultation."

Comments

"Certain circumstances"?

[Lunaritian]

"The policy would cover cases in which a site is involved in crimes covered under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, including fraud, prostitution, money laundering, blackmail and copyright infringement."

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sribe]

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

And I was under the impression, mistaken perhaps, that the UK and most of Europe did not consider prostitution a serious crime?

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe UK people will loose faith in the canonical DNS and switch to others. Legal actions get confusing from there.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

"The policy would cover cases in which a site is involved in crimes covered under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, including fraud, prostitution, money laundering, blackmail and copyright infringement."

The interesting thing is that it should be trivial for the cops to get a court order if there is any evidence that the site is involved in any of that.

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

As for copyright infringement, yes, it is so serious of a crime that international treaties have been created around it that give beneficial or detrimental trade preferences depending on how copyright is handled. Some of these treaties have been around longer then anyone you know was alive or anyone they could have known was alive.

  In the small scheme of things, you giving or receiving a music recording or copying a book and passing it to a couple friends is meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, too much of that means other countries will restrict trade (even in non-related areas) and disregard the copyright of your county and possibly more.

Whether we want to think it is a big deal or not, it has been for over 150 years. At least it has with almost every tin pot dictator or elected body of government the western world has seen in that time. Copyright promotes the influx of ideas and content from other areas while exporting wealth and values.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[JockTroll]

And I was under the impression, mistaken perhaps, that the UK and most of Europe did not consider prostitution a serious crime?

How could the UK government consider prostitution a serious crime, seeing how they prostituted themselves to Murdoch & Co, and how they're prostituting themselves to the media mob? Remember, they not only get paid to suck cock, but it's your bunghole they're selling as well.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[davester666]

where "other countries" is a euphemism for "the United States"...

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[ge7]

Surprise surprise, EU countries are sovereign. They have their own laws. In some countries you find streets full of prostitutes, in some it's kind of illegal but there's no punishment (as long as the prostitutes are working themselves and nobody is pimping them) and in some countries it's outright illegal to buy or sell sex. Most men get around these laws by buying gifts or taking women to restaurant, but it's basically the same thing.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[AlecC]

"Is involved"? Who says? Properly speaking, until there has been a trial, then the site is only alleged to be involved - so the they could not close it down. I have no problems with closing sites after a fair trial has found guilt of a crime. Unfortunately, the implication of the rest of the article is that "is involved" actually means "is alleged by police to be involved"

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Nocturnal Deviant]

"Most men get around these laws by buying gifts or taking women to restaurant, but it's basically the same thing."

sounds like what we do in america to get laid >.> i think its called a "date"

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Opportunist]

Duh. That's the ONLY reason this law would be used at all. Do you think anyone cares about you getting swindled out of your money?

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[JasterBobaMereel]

They can get a Court order - Unlike the US where it takes only a short time, (at least according to US TV Cop shows). here it takes days at least and often longer, a website could have scammed many people by then

Even with this there are safeguards, if they shut down a website, (remove DNS to it) then later cannot provide enough evidence to justify it, they can be sued ...

But having said that I am always dubious of police powers if they have the potential to be mis-used ...

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[1s44c]

"The policy would cover cases in which a site is involved in crimes covered under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, including fraud, prostitution, money laundering, blackmail and copyright infringement."

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

The thing is it's not 'sites involved in', It's 'sites accused of being involved in'. This rule is wide open for abuse, they can shutdown anything with it.

Besides it's a totally stupid rule as the current DNS setup lets anyone anywhere register anything anywhere else. Not to mention you don't even need a domain name to host a website.

This is stupid political powermongering types giving excessive power to corrupt police. Again.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[1s44c]

"The policy would cover cases in which a site is involved in crimes covered under the Serious Crimes Act 2007, including fraud, prostitution, money laundering, blackmail and copyright infringement."

The interesting thing is that it should be trivial for the cops to get a court order if there is any evidence that the site is involved in any of that.

So why do they need powers to take down websites where they have no evidence of any wrongdoing?

Maybe for the same reason they need powers to stop and search people without even the faintest suspicion of any wrongdoing. That is they are corrupt and just looking to increase their power.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[ge7]

It's actually kind of interesting thing compared to some countries in Asia. There the situation is kind of reversed - as a guy you can just walk to a bar and it doesn't take long for them to try to come hit on you. It really doesn't take long for a guy to find a nice girlfriend there, if he just wants to. The women know that too, and really appreciate when they find a nice guy. The downside is that they can get quite jealous easily. But well, they even give beer money from the little they make to their guy so he can go out with his friends. It's interesting thing anyway, so reversed to western countries.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Luckyo]

They give "beer money" because they essentially own family money - it's expected that husband brings his entire salary home to his wife, who may or may not, at her own discretion give husband some spending money.

It really isn't nearly as rosy as you paint it. Grass only appears to be greener on the other side.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[ge7]

Not that I would know how it is after you marry, but where I've been women are working hard too. Maybe the whole deal isn't as rosy, but for a single guy it's much more awesome place to be. I guess in western world it mostly comes from the position most men have put women to ie., getting sex is, well, getting and women is the one giving, as well as thinking beautiful girls are hard to get. When men think like that, of course women start to take advantage of it.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[cheekyjohnson]

The potential loss of potential profit is a monumentally horrible occurrence. Just thinking about it happening to me causes me to become paralyzed with fear.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[silas_moeckel]

Can be sued, yea no effort there. How about a 100k penalty (held by a third party) if they are unable to get a court order within x time and if that order is overthrown. Yes they can shut down a site if it's realy important but they wont start doing it at the drop of a hat.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Anonymous Coward]

like the trope says...

Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[avatar139]

As for copyright infringement, yes, it is so serious of a crime that international treaties have been created around it that give beneficial or detrimental trade preferences depending on how copyright is handled.

That's kind of dodging the question though, as the legality of copyright infringement is related to the establishment of those political treaties but is not contingent upon them.

Some of these treaties have been around longer then anyone you know was alive or anyone they could have known was alive.

That's an interesting point, but how old a law is usually only comes into play when looking at the history of how the courts have ruled it to apply in different situations when discussing matters of law, not treaties.

When looking at how diplomacy is actually practiced, treaties are generally more for political/public/perceptual leverage in dealings between different countries than they are inviolable laws.

In the small scheme of things, you giving or receiving a music recording or copying a book and passing it to a couple friends is meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, too much of that means other countries will restrict trade (even in non-related areas) and disregard the copyright of your county and possibly more.

Um...No...Because often other countries have things that your country doesn't (such as Oil from the Middle East) or if they own a great deal of your debt (as is the case with China). Setting aside the copyright issue, the western world has stepped over the bodies of countless thousands murdered by dictators for decades (incidentally, that's not even counting the genocide done by those dictators that we help put into power) because they have something that we need.

The thing to remember when learning about history/politics/international studies is, to paraphrase Kissinger, that countries don't have laws when dealing with each other, instead, they have interests.

Whether we want to think it is a big deal or not, it has been for over 150 years. At least it has with almost every tin pot dictator or elected body of government the western world has seen in that time. Copyright promotes the influx of ideas and content from other areas while exporting wealth and values.

While I have no idea what the existence of despotism in the world has to do with copyright policy, I would say that if the Arab Spring has taught us anything it's that the free (as in Freedom ;) flow of information allows the overthrow of dictatorships, not restrictions (such as copyright).

What the mafiAA (and most other businesses) fail to grasp is that the majority of people in other countries simply cannot afford to pay $10-15 for a movie ticket when the average income is $3,000 a year, so of course piracy is going to be prevalent in a lot of countries!

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Encouraging people to take arms and force the government to revoke abusive laws is illegal, therefore I will not do this here.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Dan541]

Copyright infringement is the worse crime anyone can commit. Just wait someday we will see a death penalty proposed; I wish I was joking.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a serious crime?! Of course it is -- Just recently I saw it in a list with fraud, prostitution, and money laundering! Copyright infringers and child molesters, the scum of the earth.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[ge7]

What the mafiAA (and most other businesses) fail to grasp is that the majority of people in other countries simply cannot afford to pay $10-15 for a movie ticket when the average income is $3,000 a year, so of course piracy is going to be prevalent in a lot of countries!

They're aren't paying $10-15 per movie ticket. For example Thailand, where the average income per year is $3,000-4,000, movie ticket costs about $2. Or if you want your own big sofa in the theater, $4. Other prices are similarly scaled down.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

I guess anything is possible in your mind.

However, other countries signed the same international copyright treaties the US is part of before the US did. In fact, the Two treaties that brought us the DMCA was signed and ratified by the European Union before the US signed on and created the DMCA as part of the ratification of them. The berne convention carried most of Europe and the rest of the world while the US was stuck on 20 years in bilateral treaties with it's trade partners until the mid to late 80's when we finally fixed an obligation from the 50's or 60's to come current with the berne convention because of trade pressure from Europe.

Please learn something about which you attempt to speak of. Copyright has long been a diplomatic tool for a lot of countries to force the honoring of their own intellectual rights in those foreign countries.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

That's kind of dodging the question though, as the legality of copyright infringement is related to the establishment of those political treaties but is not contingent upon them.

No, it's not dodging it at all. The governments of the countries determine what is or what isn't a crime and the punishment or rememdies to that crime is describes the seriousness of it. The international treaties also attempt to get other nations to take it just as seriously-- .

That's an interesting point, but how old a law is usually only comes into play when looking at the history of how the courts have ruled it to apply in different situations when discussing matters of law, not treaties.

When looking at how diplomacy is actually practiced, treaties are generally more for political/public/perceptual leverage in dealings between different countries than they are inviolable laws.

Sort of.. But you are missing key issues here. A treaty on something like the terms of copyright actually does get made into law because the treaties spell out a term and generally that each signatory needs to honor the copyright terms of the other. So in this context, it's more then just a public facade showing an agreement to be best friends for 20 years or something of the sort.

Um...No...Because often other countries have things that your country doesn't (such as Oil from the Middle East) or if they own a great deal of your debt (as is the case with China). Setting aside the copyright issue, the western world has stepped over the bodies of countless thousands murdered by dictators for decades (incidentally, that's not even counting the genocide done by those dictators that we help put into power) because they have something that we need.

I'm, not sure what your point is here. It doesn't seems to disprove or counter anything i have said other then you saying "umm no". Perhaps if your comment wasn't riddled with so much other tripe, you point would be more clear.

The thing to remember when learning about history/politics/international studies is, to paraphrase Kissinger, that countries don't have laws when dealing with each other, instead, they have interests.

Sure, and I reference one of the biggest interest ever known- trade.

While I have no idea what the existence of despotism in the world has to do with copyright policy, I would say that if the Arab Spring has taught us anything it's that the free (as in Freedom ;) flow of information allows the overthrow of dictatorships, not restrictions (such as copyright).

What is has to do with things is that it's prevalent in every type of government. They are concerned with copyright, even the communist countries are concerned with copyright. Granted, they use violations of it as a way to impose sanctions on other countries, but that only reinforces the perceived values that all governments place on it.

What the mafiAA (and most other businesses) fail to grasp is that the majority of people in other countries simply cannot afford to pay $10-15 for a movie ticket when the average income is $3,000 a year, so of course piracy is going to be prevalent in a lot of countries!

I really don't care about the mafIAA or most businesses. I'm talking about the governments of the countries and how they consider copyright to be something serious. I have not seen a government yet that got rid of all copyright. We have seen governments put different terms and different values or conditions on it. But we have not seen any of them get rid of it. The governments of the world take copyright seriously and this transcends elected governments changing every few years as well as 40 year or longer dictatorships. The only people who seem to not take copyright seriously are the subjects of those governments.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[davester666]

Yes. And it's not really specific countries pushing for these increases, but multinational corporations, which push different countries into a game of leapfrog.

One country does 20, another must be 'updated' to at least 30. Then the first country clearly doesn't protect IP enough, so it must be updated to 50 years or the life of the creator, whichever is longer. Then the second country simply must go life + 20, just to be fair.

It's just a stupid, slow, giant game of leapfrog, where IP rights are continually extended and expanded.

At least here in Canada we managed to get our politicians to hold off the pressure from the US to enact the DMCA [which of course, isn't required by the Berne Convention, even if the US tries to claim it is].

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

You do understand that the DMCA was derived out of the two WIPO treaties WCT and WPPT right? Canada signed onto it in december of 1997 but has yet to ratify it and move into force. In contrast, the US signed onto it in april of 97, ratified it in sept of 1999, and went into force in 2002. The EU signed in 1996, ratified it in 2009 and went into force in 2010.

I think the pressure is coming from countries other then "just" the US but Canada won't hold it off forever as long as the treaties are in tact as they already showed their intentions to follow them.

And I'm not disputing your concept of muti-national corporations.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Do that and the Judges will just rubber stamp court orders.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most men get around these laws by buying gifts or taking women to restaurant, but it's basically the same thing.

Sounds like dating.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[AmiMoJo]

too much of that means other countries will restrict trade (even in non-related areas) and disregard the copyright of your county and possibly more.

And yet Sweden, Russia, China, Spain, Brazil, Canada and all the rest who don't subscribe to the US vision of copyright infringement = theft punishable by massive fines and jail terms are still somehow able to trade internationally.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[tehcyder]

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

And I was under the impression, mistaken perhaps, that the UK and most of Europe did not consider prostitution a serious crime?

Always copyright infringement. Is it really a "serious crime"? And will this rule really have any effect?

And I was under the impression, mistaken perhaps, that the UK and most of Europe did not consider prostitution a serious crime?

In the UK, it's gnerally the trafficking and exploitation of young, possibly under-aged vulnerable women that is seen as a serious problem by many people, not so much prostitution in itself, although kerb-crawling (picking up prostitutes in your car off the street) is illegal, as are many other activities associated with prostitution, like running a brothel.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[tehcyder]

"Most men get around these laws by buying gifts or taking women to restaurant, but it's basically the same thing."

sounds like what we do in america to get laid >.> i think its called a "date"

There's nothing so embarrassing as taking a prostitute out for a meal , buying her gifts and still finding at the end of the evening that she won't sleep with you.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[avatar139]

Sort of.. But you are missing key issues here. A treaty on something like the terms of copyright actually does get made into law because the treaties spell out a term and generally that each signatory needs to honor the copyright terms of the other. So in this context, it's more then just a public facade showing an agreement to be best friends for 20 years or something of the sort.

Evidently someone forgot to tell that to the Chinese... ;)

I'm, not sure what your point is here. It doesn't seems to disprove or counter anything i have said other then you saying "umm no". Perhaps if your comment wasn't riddled with so much other tripe, you point would be more clear.

My point was in response to your view as stated in your previous post that nations are somehow going to restrict trade because of something as trivial as copyright infringement considering that nations freely overlook other countries blatant violations of laws and treaties if the other country provides them something that they need badly enough.

In the context of this discussion, I would point out that the US constantly overlooks China's blatant hypocrisy regarding the state and nature of piracy in their country because they own a great deal of US's national debt.

What is has to do with things is that it's prevalent in every type of government. They are concerned with copyright, even the communist countries are concerned with copyright.

You do understand that the whole concept of communism is based on the idea that (basically) the government owns everything and runs all business and means of consumption, right? So you see how the whole concept of a patent system and copyright in general could be kind of antithetical to that given that the government is (in effect) the only business allowed to operate in communism? ;)

I really don't care about the mafIAA or most businesses. I'm talking about the governments of the countries and how they consider copyright to be something serious.

Yes, I can sure see how seriously the US government takes it, given how patent reform has been such a huge priority for us for the past 10 years now, despite never being able to pass any legislation to that effect. ;)

Seriously though, given the fact that the MPAA and RIAA (and their affiliate lobbying offices in other countries) have been the driving force behind pretty much all the major copyright legislation and enforcement crackdowns and "reforms" internationally in the last 10+ years, I don't see how you can view them as irrelevant in this issue?

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

Evidently someone forgot to tell that to the Chinese... ;)

One or two countries out of the 170 some recognized in the world today does not invalidate what I said.

My point was in response to your view as stated in your previous post that nations are somehow going to restrict trade because of something as trivial as copyright infringement considering that nations freely overlook other countries blatant violations of laws and treaties if the other country provides them something that they need badly enough.

In the context of this discussion, I would point out that the US constantly overlooks China's blatant hypocrisy regarding the state and nature of piracy in their country because they own a great deal of US's national debt.

China was denied a seat at the WTO 4 times after they became eligible based on their inability to enforce anti-piracy measures pertaining to copyright. China announced a custom version of Linux (red linux??) to be the country's official operating system because of sanctions surrounding copyright violations with Microsoft's operating systems. I'm not sure that history and the facts line up with your world views.

You do understand that the whole concept of communism is based on the idea that (basically) the government owns everything and runs all business and means of consumption, right? So you see how the whole concept of a patent system and copyright in general could be kind of antithetical to that given that the government is (in effect) the only business allowed to operate in communism? ;)

Sigh... We are talking about interactions between countries and you are focuses on a single political ideal within a country. The wiki article on it spells it out pretty well though. Copyright in communist systems become another form of censorship and control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Copyright_in_communist_countries

Yes, I can sure see how seriously the US government takes it, given how patent reform has been such a huge priority for us for the past 10 years now, despite never being able to pass any legislation to that effect. ;)

Seriously though, given the fact that the MPAA and RIAA (and their affiliate lobbying offices in other countries) have been the driving force behind pretty much all the major copyright legislation and enforcement crackdowns and "reforms" internationally in the last 10+ years, I don't see how you can view them as irrelevant in this issue?

They are not relevant because they are not a country and the country makes the laws. All these trade groups can do is use the laws to their advantage and ask for more laws. What you seem to be attempting to imply is that one trade organization has manage to convince the entire world to do something when the reality is that it has been doing just that already for a very long time before the tech supporting these trade groups and this the trade groups were even invented.

You are not only missing the forest for the trees, you are missing the other trees for the really ugly looking one right in front of you. Nothing RIAA or MPAA or any other trade group is doing concerning copyrights or patents or the protection of them is any different from what politicians have been doing for well over 150 years. The concept of intellectual property was invented and protected by governments of the world before the US was even a country and has continued to be so for it's entire existence. It's almost as if you are trying to blame the fans for a player getting injured at a football game because they were cheering the team on. Sure, they might have gotten the player excited, but the game would have gone on without the fans. If RIAA and MPAA and their sister organizations did not exist, little would be different from what we have today concerning the laws and treaties.

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[avatar139]

One or two countries out of the 170 some recognized in the world today does not invalidate what I said.

Yeah, but China is just one example amongst many that I chose to bring up regarding how blatantly widespread piracy is overlooked by other countries if they have resources that other countries (but mostly the US) need.

Speaking from personal experience I can tell you that pretty much every country in Asia has vendors hawking pirated DVDs on every street corner so that kind of shoots the number up quite a bit from your claim of "one or two," not to mention a lot of countries in both the Middle East and South American countries that I could bring up as well. ;)

China was denied a seat at the WTO 4 times after they became eligible based on their inability to enforce anti-piracy measures pertaining to copyright. China announced a custom version of Linux (red linux??) to be the country's official operating system because of sanctions surrounding copyright violations with Microsoft's operating systems. I'm not sure that history and the facts line up with your world views.

Hmm, given that China was eventually given a WTO membership, despite the fact that besides making a bunch of noise over tossing a few of the usual politically dissident suspects in prison for infringement they've never undertaken any serious efforts to crack down and reform on this issue, I kinda tend to think that history actually proves me right here. ;)

In regards to Microsoft, sanctions had pretty much nothing to do with China's decision to endorse Red Linux. The reason the Chinese government was pushing Red Linux to become so prevalent (nationalist attitudes aside ;) was that Beijing wanted an open source OS that they could see every line of code in, as they were very concerned about potential back doors being built in that could be accessible by foreign governments.

Microsoft made some back door concessions to Beijing regarding source code inspection but it became pretty clear to both parties that it was never going to be to the extent the Chinese government wanted, so the fact that Beijing could trumpet it as a local national brand while diplomatically leveraging it as a major conciliatory effort regarding piracy without having to actively crack down on the local Windows users who were (and are) pretty much all pirated versions was just icing on the cake as far as they were concerned.

Sigh... We are talking about interactions between countries and you are focuses on a single political ideal within a country.

Yes, because even in the context of theory rather than how these treaties are applied in practice, individual countries shape their legislation and enforcement efforts on the framework of treaties that they are signatories of.

Another country has no power (basically) to prosecute a person for violating a treaty through the person's country justice system. They can extradite that person for trial and they can put pressure on the government to prosecute him for violating local laws that may have been enacted so as a result ultimately a treaty is secondary to local laws of each country.

Hence my reason for focusing on local law is that it's far more paramount to how copyright legislation and enforcement efforts are enacted and implemented then treaties are.

The wiki article on it spells it out pretty well though. Copyright in communist systems become another form of censorship and control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Copyright_in_communist_countries

Hmm, so I guess that resolves our earlier discussion about copyright helping to facilitate despotism then? ;)

They are not relevant because they are not a country and the country makes

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

Yeah, but China is just one example amongst many that I chose to bring up regarding how blatantly widespread piracy is overlooked by other countries if they have resources that other countries (but mostly the US) need.

And a quick google search shows that China is not really even a good good example. That seems to paint a different picture then your describing.

Hmm, given that China was eventually given a WTO membership, despite the fact that besides making a bunch of noise over tossing a few of the usual politically dissident suspects in prison for infringement they've never undertaken any serious efforts to crack down and reform on this issue, I kinda tend to think that history actually proves me right here. ;)

In regards to Microsoft, sanctions had pretty much nothing to do with China's decision to endorse Red Linux. The reason the Chinese government was pushing Red Linux to become so prevalent (nationalist attitudes aside ;) was that Beijing wanted an open source OS that they could see every line of code in, as they were very concerned about potential back doors being built in that could be accessible by foreign governments.

actually, the decision to go with their own operating system was made largely in part to show they were doing something about copyright to gain entrance in the WTO. For many years, the same was true of China. But today China's principal reason for adopting Linux is membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). As a condition of being admitted to the WTO in 2001, and in return for the trading and tariff advantages that WTO membership offers, China agreed to consistently crack down on software piracy and comply with international agreements protecting intellectual property. Again, a simple google search paints a different picture then you are describing.

Yes, because even in the context of theory rather than how these treaties are applied in practice, individual countries shape their legislation and enforcement efforts on the framework of treaties that they are signatories of.

Another country has no power (basically) to prosecute a person for violating a treaty through the person's country justice system. They can extradite that person for trial and they can put pressure on the government to prosecute him for violating local laws that may have been enacted so as a result ultimately a treaty is secondary to local laws of each country.

Hence my reason for focusing on local law is that it's far more paramount to how copyright legislation and enforcement efforts are enacted and implemented then treaties are.

Well, lets stick with what I said and the context of what it was said in. Countries take copyright seriously enough that they have made international agreements over it. Local enforcement is meaningless in that context as countries do not make treaties pertaining to right turns on red or rolling stops at traffic devices. But they do make treaties on things important enough to effect trade and copyright is seen as one of them.

Incorrect, you need only look for YRO stories to find numerous examples of MPAA industry reps being present and active participants in efforts to draft treaties and (more scarily) aiding in enforcement of already existing laws during arrests.

Why don't you point them out? It's

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[avatar139]

And a quick google search shows that China is not really even a good good example. That seems to paint a different picture then your describing.

FYI, I don't generally favor Google as a research tool (beyond troubleshooting computers) but by following your link one of the first results that came up seems to validate my "picture:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_consumer_goods#Apparel_and_accessories

I'm not saying that they don't toss a few counterfeiters in jail occasionally to fill a PR quota (not to mention the fact that it's just one of several convient excuses Beijing has to draw upon if they want to jail dissidents), but my point is that it's so prevalent in Asia that when you factor in the fact that the majority of the world's population is there, a few arrests means very little in the grand scheme of things.

actually, the decision to go with their own operating system was made largely in part to show they were doing something about copyright to gain entrance in the WTO. For many years, the same was true of China. But today China's principal reason for adopting Linux is membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). As a condition of being admitted to the WTO in 2001, and in return for the trading and tariff advantages that WTO membership offers, China agreed to consistently crack down on software piracy and comply with international agreements protecting intellectual property. Again, a simple google search paints a different picture then you are describing.

Not really, my point was that national security was the driving concern regarding the adoption of Linux, however as I stated earlier:

Microsoft made some back door concessions to Beijing regarding source code inspection but it became pretty clear to both parties that it was never going to be to the extent the Chinese government wanted, so the fact that Beijing could trumpet it as a local national brand while diplomatically leveraging it as a major conciliatory effort regarding piracy without having to actively crack down on the local Windows users who were (and are) pretty much all pirated versions was just icing on the cake as far as they were concerned.

Again, they were able to kill three birds with one stone but since to date Beijing has never made any effort to seriously enact copyright reform (or curtail their sponsoring of crackers and counterfeiting organizations) or enact any kind of legislation banning non-Red Linux operating systems from being used in China, I'm not sure why you would view this whole issue as anything more than a political gesture that they used (in addition to other diplomatic mesures) to pressure the WTO into giving them membership status?

Well, lets stick with what I said and the context of what it was said in.

Countries take copyright seriously enough that they have made international agreements over it. Local enforcement is meaningless in that context as countries do not make treaties pertaining to right turns on red or rolling stops at traffic devices. But they do make treaties on things important enough to effect trade and copyright is seen as one of them.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that the treaties are for the most part meaningless because the actual laws that are made and enforced are done so by each country so the treaty is in

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

FYI, I don't generally favor Google as a research tool (beyond troubleshooting computers) but by following your link one of the first results that came up seems to validate my "picture:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_consumer_goods#Apparel_and_accessories [wikipedia.org]

You do understand that apparel and accessories are not copyright right?

I'm not saying that they don't toss a few counterfeiters in jail occasionally to fill a PR quota (not to mention the fact that it's just one of several convient excuses Beijing has to draw upon if they want to jail dissidents), but my point is that it's so prevalent in Asia that when you factor in the fact that the majority of the world's population is there, a few arrests means very little in the grand scheme of things.

Ok, ask yourself this question. What would motivate China to toss counterfeiters in jail for PR in the first place? If they do not care about it, then what would motivate them other then compliance with international treaties and trade favors?

Not really, my point was that national security was the driving concern regarding the adoption of Linux, however as I stated earlier:

lol.. ok, then provide a link which also says so. I mean seriously, all the talk at the time was because of getting into the WTO. If your right, i'm sure is was discussed somewhere. Either way, what we know to be true is that even China made an effort over copyright for trade advantages so even if you do find a link, it doesn't invalidate what was said.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that the treaties are for the most part meaningless because the actual laws that are made and enforced are done so by each country so the treaty is in effect entirely contingent on upon how it is interpreted in each country, even assuming that the country in question doesn't just ignore it beyond giving it lip service.

The treaties spell out terms and conditions the laws need to meet. They do not spell out punishment or fines and such, but the laws created have to be strong enough to meet the spirit of the treaty. If the UK all the sudden decided the penalty for piracy was a $10 fine plus court costs, they would receive trade sanctions or lose trade benefits from other countries that are part of the treaty. Some countries only make the laws because of the treaties in hopes that trade favors help their economy. I'm not sure how you can claim that's not taking it seriously.

Well you seemed to like Google searches so much I figured you wouldn't have a problem doing a search on Slashdot for stories with the header YRO that have a bearing on this issue. ;)

lol.. nice troll there. I see how it is now. You want me to validate your point that you cannot validate.. I think this conversation is about over.

I really like the irony in how you proceed to imply paranoid hysteria on my part there by spontaneously constructing an elaborate narrative fiction that has absolutely no bearing on anything I stated after suggesting a few paragraphs earlier that I should stay within the context of what you said and what it was said in. ;)

Then please, in clear and concise wording, without all the evil dribble, explain to me exactly what it is you are trying to say. I mean is it government creating the laws and treaties or is it RIAA and it's cohorts making laws and treaties? Last I heard, only government could create laws and treaties. And since almost all of the countries around the world have participated in that concerning copyright, something has to be true here.

Again, just because a country is a signatory to something, it doe

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[avatar139]

You do understand that apparel and accessories are not copyright right?

You do understand that deliberately knocking off a brand generally involves some sort of IP infringement, right? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_consumer_goods#General_description

Ok, ask yourself this question. What would motivate China to toss counterfeiters in jail for PR in the first place? If they do not care about it, then what would motivate them other then compliance with international treaties and trade favors?

I'm not saying they don't care about it completely, but the art of diplomacy is leveraging perception to gain the advantage.

As long as China can point to some very loud domestic media coverage of a measly few people getting tossed into prison for infringement, they can maintain the appearance both at home and abroad of doing something about it without potentially rocking the boat as far the domestic population is concerned by instituting a massive crackdown on manufacturing and use of counterfeit items.

While China is taking a token appearance of action for diplomatic reasons for all intents and purposes it basically amounts to nothing as they've never made the slightest actual effort to reform and crack down on counterfeit and pirated goods and services beyond raising the arrest quota.

The treaties spell out terms and conditions the laws need to meet. They do not spell out punishment or fines and such, but the laws created have to be strong enough to meet the spirit of the treaty.

That's my whole point! The thing that laws, treaties and (especially ;) UN resolutions have in common is that they are all just words on paper without a means of enforcement to back them up with, thereby ensuring that people abide by them!

If the UK all the sudden decided the penalty for piracy was a $10 fine plus court costs, they would receive trade sanctions or lose trade benefits from other countries that are part of the treaty.

Yes, but to be fair, that's not really a valid example in this case for two reasons:

1. As much as I love the Old Country, I'm afraid that Great Britain is an empire no more, hence they would have little diplomatic leverage internationally to allow other countries to overlook what they were doing in that regard, versus China, which while currently experiencing an (IMO) unsustainable level of economic growth coupled with the fact that they own a great deal of the US's national debt, means that they can get away with (in effect basically) ignoring the international outcry as long as they make a token effort for appearances.

2. I'm hard pressed to think of a change in a country's policies that major occurring in history regarding copyright. Generally as far as I'm aware off the top of my head, most countries have either tightened their laws or maintained the status quo after signing.

Some countries only make the laws because of the treaties in hopes that trade favors help their economy. I'm not sure how you can claim that's not taking it seriously.

Because talk is cheap and so is making a bunch of laws purely for the sake of appearances. It's the effort that you put into creating and enforcing those laws that matters.

lol.. nice troll there. I see how it is now. You want me to validate your point that you cannot validate.. I think this conversation is about over.

No, I can certainly validate it, I was just being lazy and hoping you'd do it yourself thereby saving me the trouble ;) : http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/mpaa

Then please, in clear and concise wording, without all the evil dribble, explain to me exactly what it is you are trying to say. I mean is it government creating the laws and treaties or is it RIAA a

Re:"Certain circumstances"?

[sumdumass]

You do understand that deliberately knocking off a brand generally involves some sort of IP infringement, right? ;)

we are talking about copyright and you feel the need to include everything under the sun?

I'm not saying they don't care about it completely, but the art of diplomacy is leveraging perception to gain the advantage.

As long as China can point to some very loud domestic media coverage of a measly few people getting tossed into prison for infringement, they can maintain the appearance both at home and abroad of doing something about it without potentially rocking the boat as far the domestic population is concerned by instituting a massive crackdown on manufacturing and use of counterfeit items.

While China is taking a token appearance of action for diplomatic reasons for all intents and purposes it basically amounts to nothing as they've never made the slightest actual effort to reform and crack down on counterfeit and pirated goods and services beyond raising the arrest quota.

so what your saying is that china takes copyright, or at least the trade advantages of it seriously at times and not so much at other times. hmm... I'm not sure that detracts from what i have said.

That's my whole point! The thing that laws, treaties and (especially ;) UN resolutions have in common is that they are all just words on paper without a means of enforcement to back them up with, thereby ensuring that people abide by them!

Most UN resolutions, sure. But treaties generally carry a benefit to both parties involved. the loss of this benefit or even going further with sanctions of some sort are the enforcement. you violate the treaty or do not faithfully implement it, you do not get trade advantage and suffer a trade penalty.

Yes, but to be fair, that's not really a valid example in this case for two reasons:

1. As much as I love the Old Country, I'm afraid that Great Britain is an empire no more, hence they would have little diplomatic leverage internationally to allow other countries to overlook what they were doing in that regard, versus China, which while currently experiencing an (IMO) unsustainable level of economic growth coupled with the fact that they own a great deal of the US's national debt, means that they can get away with (in effect basically) ignoring the international outcry as long as they make a token effort for appearances.

2. I'm hard pressed to think of a change in a country's policies that major occurring in history regarding copyright. Generally as far as I'm aware off the top of my head, most countries have either tightened their laws or maintained the status quo after signing.

lol.. do you even pay attention to the world around you? do you remember antigua fighting the us and winning over gambling laws?Your entire premise is shot down by recent events.

I do like how you are fighting so hard to clasp onto a wrong idea.

Because talk is cheap and so is making a bunch of laws purely for the sake of appearances. It's the effort that you put into creating and enforcing those laws that matters.

yawn... those efforts only nee dto satisfy the terms of the treaty, not your expectations.

No, I can certainly validate it, I was just being lazy and hoping you'd do it yourself thereby saving me the trouble ;)

that doesn't validate your claim. it's just a bunch of links where either the *iaa's are celebrating something or using the law in civil proceedings. i think you are confused.

You seem to keep trying to make certain points into extremes here, either China is abiding by copyright treaties or it isn't, either the mafiAA is making the laws

No big deal

[GameboyRMH]

Every domain has its own set of political issues, including .com/.net/.org, which the US ICE can take down if you even link to copyright-infringing material. You just have to know the risks and choose the domain that's least likely to run you into legal trouble depending on the content your site is hosting.

Re:No big deal

[biodata]

What happens to domains which link to domains which link to infringing content? Would it work to have your homepage on a .com and the backend elsewhere or is the law allowed to see through these kinds of indirection and basically shut down anything they don't like?

Re:No big deal

[GameboyRMH]

They attack whichever site the front end is on - including any sites that redirect straight to an infringing domain. So if you're running 70stvtorrents.com with the backend on 70stvtorrents.es or something like that, whether the interface to the site itself is on the .com or it just redirects to the .es, the .com will get taken down.

Re:No big deal

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure you can claim a degree of separation if the site is designed to drive traffic to the offending site or another site designed to drive traffic to an offending site. Perhaps if it was masked as a news site or something but that's the basis of the torent and other search problems sites like packet news and iso hunt ran into.

Re:No big deal

[1s44c]

Every domain has its own set of political issues, including .com/.net/.org, which the US ICE can take down if you even link to copyright-infringing material. You just have to know the risks and choose the domain that's least likely to run you into legal trouble depending on the content your site is hosting.

Ok, so where is a safe domain to put my homepage under?

The only safe domain I know of is .bit because it's controlled by a peer to peer network of computers not corruptable humans.

Re:No big deal

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah only darknets are absolutely safe.

Re:No big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ok, so where is a safe domain to put my homepage under?

That would depend on what you wish to put on your homepage, and your definition of 'safe'. According to this http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/ page, there are about 130 million registered domains if we only count .com, .net, .info, .biz, and .us (nearly 100 million of those are in the .com domain). So even if 100 (this number is not based on any real statistics, I just made it up) domains are closed each day (completely at random) by law enforcement, there is less than 1 in a million chance of your page getting deleted by law enforcement each day (if you register it on one of those tlds), and since the number of registered domains is growing faster than 100 domains/day (according to the page I linked to, in the last 24 hours about 54k domains expired, and 72k new ones appeared), that chance will go down further over time.

The above is of course in the assumption that random domains are targeted, but as a person who is intelligent enough to operate a keyboard, you will probably realize that the contents of your page (or other pages on the domain, if you share your domain with others) will affect the odds of having it removed. If you write about how much you love ponies, nobody gives a fuck. If you write about how much you like to have sex with ponies, odds are you're going to get some attention. If you write about, and sell tickets (discount for those under the age of 12) for the great parties at your farm where hookers snort cocaine of the backs of stolen ponies and then have sex with them, there's a pretty good chance of your domain being taken down, and you can also expect a visit from the authorities who will want to ask you some questions.

Try using common sense, it works most of the time.

Perhaps if you had specified what you intend to host on that homepage of yours, somebody could have provided an actual answer.

Fudge

[biodata]

The proposed policy looks like the typical fudge - 'we don't want to start acting as judge and jury but if the evidence is strong then we are going to start acting as judge and jury' seems to sum it up.

Repressive

[Blue Stone]

There's a name for this sort of thing: extrajudicial punishment.

I hear in civilized parts of the world, it's highly frowned upon.

Re:Repressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed... what do these people have agains due process? I have it difficult to see that an action like this where there is no loss of life issues could warrant a court order free closure of domains, even for serious crime... just follow due process and get the bloody court order.

Re:Repressive

[Opportunist]

It's kinda like the inquisition trials. No, I'm not trolling. One of the core features of an inquisition trial was that accuser and judge were united in the same person or party.

And that's basically what's going to be used here. Accuser and judge will be rolled into one party: The police. I just doubt that one other feature of the inquisition, the guidance of the holy spirit to lead the judge to a fair and considerate verdict, would be with them...

Re:Repressive

[1s44c]

There's a name for this sort of thing: extrajudicial punishment.

I hear in civilized parts of the world, it's highly frowned upon.

Where are these civilized parts of the world you talk about?

Extrajudicial Punishment and various forms of abuse of power are common in every western country I've ever seen, the non-western ones tend to be far worse.

Re:Repressive

[TheRealGrogan]

It's highly frowned upon by society, in western countries. The cops lobby for powers to be able to do it, and citizens frown when they are granted.

Examples: Where I live, they have this stupid "street racing" law that they have expanded to mean exceeding the speed limit by 50 km/h (regardless of circumstances), squealing tires, driving the wrong way to get out of traffic (e.g. motorcyclists getting charged for using part of a ramp or merging lane to sneak out of a traffic jam). The penalty is impounding the vehicle for one week, regardless of who owns it. (e.g. Dad, company vehicle, etc.) and criminal charges. These cases are mostly dismissed in court, yet the extrajudical punishment has already been administered. (Loss of possibly important vehicle for a week, and thousands of dollars in "fees" by the time you are done). Police were given "discretion", yet that translates into punish wherever possible.

So you get people being charged with this offense for ridiculous things like exceeding the speed limit by 50km/h in an 80 km/h zone (most of our highways have that ridiculous speed limit, even some divided spots) in order to safely pass a pack of idiots slowing down the whole highway. Putting this in perspective, that's only going 80 miles per hour (130 km/h). This is mostly how this law is applied. It's seldom used to catch "street racers" or "stunt drivers", it preys on ordinary people doing things that are not terribly unsafe, in the right circumstances. Judges lambaste the police for laying these charges, but they shamelessly proclaim that they are going to continue

Another example. Drinking and driving. The law here is 0.08 BAC, yet the police have been empowered to give road side suspensions and impound vehicles (You know it's just mean spirited when they do it regardless if there is someone else present to drive the vehicle or not) at 0.05. The law is 0.08, yet the police can punish you at 0.05 where it's not even an offense. The people who are "0.05 BAC" are not the problem, it's the drunks that need to be dealt with. Note: Any righteous twats who would admonish me for objecting to this, please fuck off in advance. I'm not advocating drunk driving, and it's not the point.

Arbitrarily shutting down sites to punish people is similar. It's going to be applied to punish people for copyright infringement while being sold for reasons of "thinking of the children" or "preventing terrorism" or "combating organized crime". It's also going to be used to silence people who interfere with agendas.

Police also do things to punish, like publicly announcing the names of "johns" (who haven't yet been or never will be convicted of anything) as well as accused pedophiles. (Innocent people have committed suicide because they couldn't live down the reputation after clearing their names)

Police can not be given broad powers of discretion, because they abuse them. They need to be kept on a very short, tight leash.

Re:Repressive

[thsths]

So you get people being charged with this offense for ridiculous things like exceeding the speed limit by 50km/h in an 80 km/h zone

What is it about speeding that gives people the feeling they are entitled to it? The speed limit is the law - breaking it is breaking the law, and of course that has to be punished (otherwise the law would no longer be respected). And speeding is most certainly not a victimless crime - most fatal accidents involve either speeding, alcohol, mobile phones or some other disregard for the law.

For the geeks here: a vehicle travelling at 130 km/h has 2 1/2 times the kinetic energy of a vehicle traveling at 80 km/h. And after a fixed breaking distance to impact the difference becomes even larger.

Re:Repressive

[Anonymous Coward]

I just doubt that one other feature of the inquisition, the guidance of the holy spirit to lead the judge to a fair and considerate verdict, would be with them...

Do you want to tell us that that is a good or a bad thing?

Re:Repressive

[Opportunist]

A bad thing.

To understand why those inquisition trials could actually be "fair", despite having judge and accuser in one person, you have to understand how these trials worked. When you compare it to the other tribunals of the time, you can easily see why people actually hoped that they'd be tried by the inquisition rather than the mundane powers that were. For an inquisition tribunal, you had the right to a defensor (pretty much like being allowed a lawyer), you had the right to hear the accusations, and a few other things we take for granted today.

Note: I'm talking about the Roman (papal) inquisition. The Spanish inquisition is a completely different thing and about as comparable as, say, a Stalinist trial to a democratic one.

But back to the good or bad thing bit. The idea was that the accuser accuses not out of his own motivation but out of necessity. He was not involved in the case (and was, at least in theory, chosen from people who have no personal relationship with the case, the accused or the matter) and hence was expected to render a fair and impartial verdict. You could say that we have, today, not really a much different system, considering that judge and general attorney still come from the same "party", where many GAs eventually become judges (that's at least the general practice in my country).

It worked surprisingly well, actually. A fair lot of inquisition trials ended with an acquittal.

The problem in the case at hand is that the party acting as judge and accuser HAS an interest in rendering a 'guilty' verdict. After all, they've been collecting data and now try to prove their point by adding as much as they can. Hence I doubt that this practice will be as fair as the (Roman) inquisition trials were.

Re:Repressive

[TheRealGrogan]

Actually I am entitled to pass vehicles that are slowing me down and to do it safely and get back in my lane, I sometimes need to use my engine. Back in the day when cops weren't trained to be mindless, overbearing, money collecting tools of the state, they wouldn't have batted an eye for passing someone at 80 mph (the speed limits were higher too). In fact when stopped, you often just got a warning about excessive speed if you were passing. Police used to try to facilitate the flow of traffic.

Of course, you ignore the point. There are already laws on the books to deal with excessive speeding anyway. It's called "The Highway Traffic Act" here. The extrajudicial punishment is the problem, and the fact that a special provision, that was never intended to be used in this manner, is being abused. Just like the extrajudicial act of getting a registrar to shut down a site's domain will be. ... as for the condescending physics lesson, you don't have to be a geek to have made it to grade 9. Or is that some sort of accomplishment in your circle? The mentality of "The law is the law" should merit a ribbon of some sort, so at least there's that.

OH MAN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that copyright infringement man!
Kills thousands of innocent people daily! It is terrible!

The problem

[Compaqt]

The problem with all these sorts of powers (including the Justice Department shutting down sites it deems to have violated copyright) is that there's no judicial procedure.

Why is it that they don't understand the idea of having to prove wrongdoing by a website owner instead of merely asserting it?

In the new world, is enough to merely be accused of being a "pirate" to be shunted into a place where you have no rights? And no compulsory process for redress, and confronting your accusers?

Re:The problem

[tqk]

Why is it that they don't understand the idea of having to prove wrongdoing by a website owner instead of merely asserting it?

Oh, they understand it. They just don't like it and don't want it to apply to them. They're outsourcing that responsibility to the police instead by paying politicians to criminalize it instead.

Look at it from their point of view: everyone and their dog is stealing their stuff with impunity and not paying what they should be paying, and how can anyone expect mere rights-holders to stop that by watching and suing everyone on the planet with an Internet connection?

Solution for you? Stop buying and consuming anything that comes out of them whether that consumption is provided by legal sales or piracy. Do you really need to watch everything that comes out of Disney, or listen to everything The Eagles release? Why? Boycott them completely, and get your friends to too. Crowdsourcing's all the rage, right? So do it!

Re:The problem

[sumdumass]

i think one of the biggest problems here is that the oversight the people generally trust the most (judicial) is removed when the cops act first.

It's sort of like having the police police themselves. Was it a valid shooting of the unarmed suspect, why yes it was because the officer thought he was armed when the guy ran away.

See where this runs? the judicial oversight is supposed to be that one catch that weeds out the off course he;s armed, he;s the bad guy justification.

Re:The problem

[sjames]

How does that help? They just conclude the lost sales is due to piracy and start accusing everyone in the phonebook unless they fork over $1000 each.

They're going to have to be killed with fire.

Well

[Mensa Babe]

Just another reason to not use the .uk domain at all - the other one being that it should be .gb by ISO standard. Fortunately everyone can use the .com domain which quite frankly is the only professionally looking domain for any company that ever plans to do any business worldwide.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

what, like amazon.co.uk?

Re:Well

[hack slash]

Yeah cos the .com domain has no takedown issues like the proposed system for the .uk domain...

nope, none at all.

Re:Well

[jareth-0205]

or bbc.co.uk...

Sounds very reasonable.

[Rogerborg]

But just before you go ahead, Nominet, could you be a love and identify, oh let's say three examples of where a .uk domain has - ever - caused "serious and immediate consumer harm" before due process resulted in a court order shutting it down?

That's all I'd want to see. Three clear examples of harm, actual harm, not theoretical, and that ended in a court order. An actual court order, that was upheld, of course.

Nothing sub judice about that, court proceedings are public, so of course it won't be a problem to provide those three examples. Will it?

Re:Sounds very reasonable.

[abigsmurf]

Generally, any site where that's happened probably not going to be well publicised.

But it's not exactly a huge stretch to believe there have been at least 3 instances where .uk sites have been shut down for hosting child porn for example. To narrow the harm down to 'consumer harm', it's not a huge stretch to believe that there have been 3 instances of phishing sites being shut down either.

I can't give specific examples of any of these things because neither the victims, or the police would want these things to be made public and papers are more likely to report "paedophile ring closed down" than "www.ilikelittlechildren.co.uk" closed down for example.

Re:Sounds very reasonable.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds more like a desperate dumb attempt to in the future possibly try to close it fast enough that no one can see it was hacked, and just claim later it was an unscheduled "maintenance".

Re:Sounds very reasonable.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, I could have sworn the pictures you mention had already been taken, possibly years ago. The harm was inflicted long ago, and not by a website.

Do images of WWII bombings of civilian centers hurt people today?

Re:Sounds very reasonable.

[jonbryce]

Basically all the sites that sell fake concert tickets. I don't want to dignify any of them with links but there are a lot more than three of them. Like maybe 300 of them.

Re:Sounds very reasonable.

[sjames]

And of course, since police will be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the shutdown is just and necessary, they will happily post a bond to be paid to the target should a court not subsequently issue a warrant, right?

Re:Sounds very reasonable.

[sjames]

Yes, but they would have to show ACTUAL harm that happened as a result of the delay caused by waiting on a warrant.

And why wouldn't a dead and gone domain name be reported publicly?

backhanded

[Lilo-x]

Nominet actually sent a questionaiire out to the membership asking for their feedback, I had to question it as it was extremely leading,

Question 1)

Do you think Nominet should have the power to shut down domains?
Yes
No

The problem was, even if you answered No, all subsequent questions were asked as though you had answered Yes.

Corrupt UK plod

[jcaren]

The problem is that when someone has a website that exposes corruption (say in the Met Police), the site is usually shutdown preety quickly or the owner intimidated into removing the hosting services.

This is not action against illegal acts, this is action by the police to protect each other from being foudn to have broken the law.

Re:Corrupt UK plod

[biodata]

Do you know of any examples of this? It would be interesting to know more about.

Re:Corrupt UK plod

[Anonymous Coward]

he can't give any examples, obviously, because the Met have visited him and broken all his fingers. Well, actually they got the address wrong and broke all his neighbour's fingers, but that was enough to scare him off.

Is it really a concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a website gets shut down temporarily. My word, the horrors!

Ok, so there is a potential for abuse, but there's potential for abuse in almost any activity the police do. Take a routine traffic stop. Can they abuse it? Absolutely. Can it be an appropriate way to prevent further harm? Absolutely.

I'm saying this because I'm concerned that the Slashdot consensus will react with outrage to the mere thought of this idea, but not even give any consideration that with limitations, management and oversight it can be a proper tool.

I do not know for sure if the implementation here is of that nature, but instead of freaking out over the idea of this being done, I'd rather give thought to doing it properly.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[Lundse]

I do not know for sure if the implementation here is of that nature, but instead of freaking out over the idea of this being done, I'd rather give thought to doing it properly.

You are right to address the knee-jerk reaction of outrage, but personally, I would rather this was not done at all. At all.

Censorship, whether by a government, their easily-bought/persuaded cronies, the copyright lobby or a company with their own reasons, is just a basically bad idea. I oppose any attempt to open the door to it, or create legal or technical infrastructure which supports it on principle (another beast than a knee-jerk, I believe). I am willing to be shown that there are special cases and exceptions, but until someone has shown me a good reason police needs unsupervised power to shut down the no. 1 media of the masses at will, I am sticking to my principle of free speech.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[cheekyjohnson]

You're right. There are likely no perfect solutions. There will probably always be corruption and abuse. However, I still think that we should try to minimize these abuses of power. One of the ways we can do this is with something like judicial oversight. That is the oversight which you speak of.

I don't think that anything they do is okay merely because they could use it correctly.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's different levels of supervision though.

Who wants this to be completely unsupervised? I certainly don't.

There is still supervision when say, a site says "hey, why are we down, what did you do, change it back!" after it's been shut down, even if it's not going to the judge first and getting their permission.

And I do think your reaction is the one I have a problem with, dealing in absolutes. It's very mixed-up with the knee-jerk one really.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why you think I believe there would be no oversight.

It just may be AFTER the action instead of before it.

Take a traffic stop. Is a judge involved? No. But after the stop, you can get a judge if there is something abusive. Will the harm be undone? Not as such, because we can't reverse time, but it can be compensated for if appropriate.

Sometimes I suppose you might even be justified using deadly force in self-defense against a cop beforehand, but other times, I just don't see the need for a pre-emptive supervision because there is some slim possibility of abuse.

If that's such a problem, maybe you'd be better off dealing with the Cops directly.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't get why you think I believe there would be no oversight.

I don't think that. You even mentioned oversight and such in your comment.

It just may be AFTER the action instead of before it.

But then the perceived damage, which may or may not have been significant, is already done. For matters like taking down websites (or attempting to censor them), I believe that there's no reason for the correct procedures to not be done beforehand. Unlike with traffic stops, this is actually viable. The website likely isn't going anywhere.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[WNight]

What does the supervision actually make better, for me and the common people?

Nothing. Yeah, imagine that.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that. You even mentioned oversight and such in your comment.

Sorry, I left out a word, I should have said judicial oversight. My bad there.

But then the perceived damage, which may or may not have been significant, is already done. For matters like taking down websites (or attempting to censor them), I believe that there's no reason for the correct procedures to not be done beforehand. Unlike with traffic stops, this is actually viable. The website likely isn't going anywhere.

But the harm caused by the website may continue. That may or may not be significant too. Either way you can cause damage. Do nothing, do something, still a chance. It's not a matter of the website going anywhere (that would be something like requiring the web hosts to keep logs) but of what the website is doing.

There can be procedures, but do they necessarily have to involve a full and exhaustive judicial hearing before action? Is there no conceivable reason, no matter how unlikely, that you would accept?

I can understand if there's no conceivable reason on your part. There are some things where there is no reason at all that will justify such actions for me, but I also tell people there's really no point offering ideas on it, as a discussion on it won't go anywhere.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there's a website spreading naked pictures of me around.

Or my children.

Or calling for my murder.

Maybe it's terrorism. Maybe it's something else.

Who knows? I can think of a lot of reasons to want a site shut down quickly.

Waiting for a judge to be found to deal with this problem may or may not be worth it. I don't know the judicial situation in the UK, but around here, it can be a bit of a problem.

What's also a problem is police officers waiting until a certain judge is on duty because that judge is more "liberal" than the others.

Go figure.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[cheekyjohnson]

But the harm caused by the website may continue.

Alleged harm, you mean. And I'd rather that happen than hurt an innocent. To reduce the chances of them harming innocents in the first place, the best way to do that would probably be to require that they go through the proper procedures beforehand.

It's a matter of preference. Even if they may stop criminals, I'd rather them implement the policy that most effectively minimizes the harm caused to innocents (even if it makes it more difficult to stop the criminals).

but I also tell people there's really no point offering ideas on it, as a discussion on it won't go anywhere.

I also believe that, but I still like to voice my opinion.

Re:Is it really a concern?

[WNight]

I can think of a lot of reasons to want a site shut down quickly.

Can you? This'll be good.

Maybe there's a website spreading naked pictures of me around.

Oh Em Gee! Pictures of a hairless ape without its tribal accoutrements.

Don't pose for pictures you don't want showing up.

Or my children.

As above, so? Or did you mean abusive pictures? In which case we pop by and arrest you for letting it happen. The website still isn't doing anything to anyone though.

Or calling for my murder.

Have you done anything deserving of death? Why is this necessarily a bad thing?

Your (presumably) government is fine with lies and death threats, and have called for murder and invasion under false pretenses on the web, tv, radio, in print, etc. If that's okay I don't see why you deserve special immunity to the threats.

Maybe it's terrorism.

Ohhh, maybe! Like a terrorist website that attempts to blow up other websites. That would require immediate action. Unfortunately, it's also fiction. Try again.

Maybe it's something else.

I think you're onto something here. It pretty much has to be!

Who knows?

Well, I know you don't.

Waiting for a judge to be found to deal with this problem may or may not be worth it. I don't know the judicial situation in the UK, but around here, it can be a bit of a problem.

Oh yeah, your #1 and #2 problems are people seeing photos of naked apes and #4 is unspecified terrorism, like you've got a fucking clue what side is up, let alone what a valid problem might be to warrant skipping judicial oversight, or that you've got a accurate and current idea on the prevalence of this special type of extra-evil website and what the harm from it would be.

You're just another authoritarian fool calling for endless regulations without even trying to understand the issue or the implications.

The what agency?

[Chelloveck]

Wait, I'm having problems parsing that. Is that the Agency dealing with Serious and Organized Crime, or the Crime Agency that is Serious and Organized? Because frankly, the latter sounds just one door down from the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Re:The what agency?

[biodata]

I think it's the former, but what isn't clear is whether this is a true boolean AND whereby crime has to be both serious AND organised to be on their turf, or whether it is a more casual And whereby the deal with serious crime And organised crime.

Re:The what agency?

[Hartree]

Well, thank heavens they aren't the Frivolous and Disorganized Crime Agency.

Re:The what agency?

[MysteriousPreacher]

I could have used the FDCA when wankers would routinely wander up the street, breaking car wing mirrors and wipers as they went.

Namecoin

[Anonymous Coward]

Fully decentralised DNS to the rescue!

http://dot-bit.org/HowToBrowseBitDomains

shutting down the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is interested in shutting down the Internet. The alternative media gives out too much information, that the governments of the world consider to be dangerous.

The government propped up monopolies in various industries (movies/music) must be protected by government obviously.

Loyal to the government media must be protected.

Any information that government finds to be embarrassing must be shut down.

Ability of the common folks to organize via various Internet provided means must be shut down.

Ability of people to communicate freely and securely must be shut down.

Any dissent must be shut down. The only thing that's left when everything is shut down is to attempt and remain anonymous, so this venue must also be shut down.

great development

[decora]

This will be an important development for our partners in countries like Syria, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Algeria, Egypt, and Iran, who are also having problems with wide spread hooliganism and the criminal element. Just last week, a troublemaker named Maikel Nabil Sanad went on a hunger strike in Egypt. That story is already being repeated on irresponsible websites who don't seem to care about protecting what really matters - the stability and security of the state.

Hello, people of Great Britain.

[Chris Tucker]

You are all living in The Village.

You are all numbers. You are less than nothing to those whom you allow to rule over you and oppress you.

You have a choice to make.

You can be free men and women. You can leave The Village anytime you wish.

All it takes is for you to say, "No. I won't!" to the police when they tell you that you cannot take pictures in public. When they 'kettle' you and tell you to obey their orders.

When they shoot innocent people in the back and tell you to move along.

All it takes is for you to say, "No. I won't!" to the government when they coddle the people that helped bring about the global financial crisis, and tell you to accept it.
When the government colludes with dictators because it is in the best interests of the government, and they tell you to mind your tongue, lest you get labeled a 'troublemaker'.

You can choose to remain numbers and remain in The Village, or you can choose to be free men and women.

The choice is yours.

Choose wisely.

it's true.

[decora]

why the alarm? back in 2002, slashdotters were ranting and raving about the new airport security measures, as though somehow it would eventually lead to the physical inspection of babies. here we are in 2011, and the only 'inspection' of babies has been a simple, reasonable pat-down.

Re:it's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a true story....the local airport was "tested" by the local media, and they did manage to get some baby carriages through without proper scrutiny.

It shouldn't take a genius to realize how easy it would be to exploit that gap, if it were worthwhile to just blow up a plane.

Yay for security theater. The way some people on Slashdot go though, you'd think if somebody came in strapped with a bunch of wires and stuff to their body, that they would be clearly untouchable.

Full disclosure: My mother IS currently wearing a bunch of wires and stuff because she has a heart condition that needs an external monitor and defibrillator just in case she goes into sudden cardiac arrest. And she'll never be safe to go through one of those machines because they want to put an internal one in her, and that will not react well at all to the scanners.

Huzzah.

Oh well, she hates flying anyway. This is just a good excuse for her to defer any requests to visit.

So good, bad, good, it's all muddled up into a nasty tangle.

Proofreading takes a Labor Day vacation?

[macraig]

Read that title again more carefully:

.UK Registrar Offers To Let Police Close Domain

For careless lack of a bit of plurality, it winds up declaring that a domain registrar has proposed letting the police disable the entire .uk domain, or TLD. I can just imagine the reactions of the staunchest anti-authoritarians upon reading that little gem! Their heart rate and blood pressure must have spiked nicely for a moment there.

pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitutes'

[decora]

so in that case, i wonder what they go after, the copyright infringement of the picture? or the guys running the prostitution ring?

Abuse of power? Couldn't happen! Oh, wait it has..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the elderly gent, thrown bodily from the Labour party conference in 2005 by security guards as a "terrorist". After being ejected his conference pass was seized and he was detained under the Terrorism Act when he tried to re-enter the conference!
All this because an 85 year old man said "nonsense" to an (according to his own party members) incompetent politician.
We certainly cannot trust any UK government, since any law that could be abused to suit an interested 3rd party almost certainly will be.

Lazy Judges

[Doc Ruby]

Instead of making the police into judge, jury and executioner, what the UK (and the world) needs is simply more competent judges. Fine the criminals to fund educating, training, investigating and managing lots more judges.

Tax the corporations that generate the majority of civil and much of criminal cases heard by judges (that they consider a "cost of doing business" paid by the people). The vast increase in court load, especially cases like the one in this story, is due to the business being transacted both legally and illegally by corporations. They should pay at least their fair share.

Anna Politkovskaya

[decora]

"We are hurtling back into a Soviet abyss, into an information vacuum that spells death from our own ignorance. All we have left is the internet, where information is still freely available. For the rest, if you want to go on working as a journalist, it's total servility. . . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[ge7]

If I take a video with my girlfriend where we're having sex while I play EVE Online and post it on slashdot, I don't think that counts as prostitution. There's other kinds of porn than professionally produced, you know.

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[youn]

The real news here is a guy on slashdot with a girlfriend? No way??? Oh please do post it :)... if that's not an imaginary girlfriend like most of us that is :)... we'll call it anything you want :p

then maybe it should have a different name

[decora]

????

Ok, so I RTFA

[jimicus]

Right now this is at the very early discussion stage - "how would we do this, should we be the last resort rather than the first resort, what sort of judicial oversight should there be etc etc?"

Now is the time for action - the time to write to Nominet and say "I don't want you doing anything without a court order". Because you can guarantee that the police will be writing to Nominet to say "Of course we won't abuse the system! Just let us shut down anything we want. Even better, save us the trouble of having to contact a human being and give us a web portal we can log into to suspend .uk domain names. Judicial oversight? Pah, unnecessary."

Better internet

[rim_namor]

The citizens will just have to set up a better Internet. It will have black jack and hookers. It's going to be absolutely different from the current Internet with its black jack and hookers. Ah gee, if citizens do set up their own Internet I'll have to reregister in every black jack and hooker site again. I can barely remember where I am now and I'll have to remember 2sets of passwords for every black jack and hooker site? ffff

5% may choose

[Anonymous Coward]

5% may be conscious enough to do this. Remaining 95% is too busy with their daily lives as well as consuming bread and enjoying their circuses. As long as the government doesn't burst their safe bubble (definition: personal Matrix where the reality consists of the things and people they actually care about), they will just go on like this.
I really hope I'm wrong on this one and that people see what's happening before it's too late.

CAPTCHA: reawaken. This is what this country needs, full reawakening.

Re:www.showsohbet.com

[opus_magnum]

Gesundheit!

Face palm

[sakdoctor]

Every time someone writes on of these condescending "Hello people of ...", I can't help but roll my eyes.

The internet is truly global, and you need to keep in mind all the time. Authorities all over the world are diligently chipping away at digital rights, and it's everyone’s problem.

Re:Face palm

[Chris Tucker]

And this was a specifically 'British' comment to the people of Great Britain about the British government "chipping away".

Besides, the British "subjects" have been the targets of Royal and Governmental condescension for 1000+ years. If they were addressed as 'citizens', why, they couldn't begin to understand what was being said to them!

Now THAT'S condescension for you, Slappy!

Re:Face palm

[Cederic]

You being a cunt doesn't make your initial post any less condescending.

Re:Face palm

[Chris Tucker]

https://img.skitch.com/20110905-qspd8edkn54u1cxriem5y5bdkd.jpg

Re:Face palm

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a bunch of cunts doesn't make the British any less condescending either.

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its literally the "writings of prostitutes", graphy being the suffix for writing.

They will just route around the damage

[Anonymous Coward]

It just means people involved in such crimes just won't set up with Nominet.

Nothing of value was lost.

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[interval1066]

GEEK ALERT!

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you too play EVE Online: A Bad Game

So that's what happened to The Register!

[mhocker]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/09/04/2012220/The-Register-Hacked

Test run?

Another Power Grab

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nominet does not have any clear obligation in its registrant Terms and Conditions that a domain name should not be used in connection with any activity that would constitute an offence under UK criminal law,"

Clearly it should have. So that's farewell to the domains owned by Murdoch tabloids and the entire police.uk second level domain. Or are we to assume from the "consumer" protection angle that the connection is required to be more direct, limited to online criminality? Like BT and TalkTalk (Opal) who have both escaped prosecution for intercepting customer data in clear and criminal violation of RIP act? Oh... but the police refused to prosecute and the EU commenced legal action against the labour government as a result. Nominet claim this procedure will only be availiable to trusted law enforcement partners, common usage of the word "trusted" here would make this entire procedure pointless!

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[Anonymous Coward]

He plays EVE. He posts on /. You don't want to see his girlfriend.

My response to the draft recommendations

[mrogers]

Having stuck my oar in during a previous consultation, I was emailed a copy of the draft recommendations and asked for feedback. Here's the response I sent to Nominet.

Dear ______,

Thank you for circulating this draft. I'm disappointed to find that Nominet is still considering adopting a policy that effectively grants the police new powers. In a democratic society, the only acceptable way for police powers to be extended is through legislation. If there is a genuine need for the police to be able to take down websites without judicial supervision, Parliament should grant the police that power. If Parliament does not do so, no other organisation should arrogate the right to do so - particularly when, as the draft notes, the Government is currently considering such legislation.

It may be inconvenient for the police, and perhaps even "harmful to consumers", that judicial oversight sometimes imposes delays on police work. Nevertheless, that oversight exists for good reasons, and attempts by the police to circumvent it are misguided and dangerous.

Court orders are available at very short notice for other kinds of urgent police work; if the courts have not seen fit to make orders for taking down websites available to the police as quickly as the police would like then it is worth asking why not. Nominet should not allow itself to be manipulated by the police into short-circuiting the judicial process.

As a piece of quasi-legislation, the draft is seriously lacking. It does not define key terms such as "consumer harm" or "UK law enforcement agencies with which Nominet has a trusted relationship". No process is defined for deciding which cases "involve disputes between private parties, freedom of expression or political speech", or for challenging such decisions.

The vague language in the final paragraph about an "appeal mechanism" and an "independent panel" makes no concrete commitments to meaningful oversight. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how it could do so, since Nominet does not have any legal powers to punish wrong decisions or make reparations. The courts do - they are the proper venue for such decisions.

Best regards,
______

Re:My response to the draft recommendations

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab your local parliament flunky and show it to them. They are usurping their powers. Those sorts of dudes DO NOT LIKE THAT... Especially if they are not in on the action...

Prior restraint

[Lexx Greatrex]

The right to justice was won through centuries of suffering; but now history's sting appears dull. Liberties that great people died to protect we complacently let erode into ashes. Such prior restraint defiles the meaning of "Innocent until proven guilty," which we have all cherished as an underpinning of freedom. The due process of law is not a privilege, it is an entitlement of every free human being. Do not lightly surrender this right, especially at the bequest of the ignorant on behalf of the incompetent.

Re:Prior restraint

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are paradoxical things. They exist independently from government and can never be destroyed, but they have no power to protect us themselves. Their only power to protect us comes from us forcing others to recognize that they exist. And it's in every one of our individual self interests to protect others from violations of their rights, because darkness can spread from anywhere.

I remember about 3-5 years back, I started seeing little articles and blurbs among the tinfoil hat crowd that the power whores of the world never liked the Internet except as a profit machine, and were starting to get more wary of it as the masses adopted it. Specifically, there were claims that they were afraid of the speed with which revelations about corruption could be transmitted around the world without control, and that if it started to make a real difference, we'd start to see attempts to shut it down under various guises--child porn, terrorism, fraud, and copyright claims.

That difference has been occurring ever more rapidly and the powers that would be kings are, just as predicted, trying to shut it down because they are terrified of what they're seeing. You think they're not afraid? Look at how quickly the global warming fraud fell apart once a single hacker stole thousands of emails and published them globally--thirty years of planning down the drain in less than a year. Arab Spring is in full force and enabling revolutions all over the Middle East. How long will the oil racket be able to maintain its grips on power when faced with a quarter billion furious Arabs? Anti-censorship technologies are reaching the point where they're nearly unstoppable, and that genie is out of the bottle forever. With WikiLeaks, Anonymous, AntiSec and their ilk grabbing headlines every day, an entire generation of attention-seeking teens and young adults is coming of age in a world where stealing confidential data to expose corruption, personal consequences be damned, is a not only socially acceptable, but socially rewarded.

That powerful organizations are reacting so strongly against the Internet is a testament to how much of an effect these actions are having. And it also shows how forcefully we need to strike back at attempts like this to give those in power new tools they will only use to try to hold onto what they lost their moral entitlement to long long ago. If we can keep this going, we can keep our governments afraid of us. And that's exactly how they should be. They should be terrified that we will utterly destroy them if they stray from the limits we have set for them.

i stand corrected

[decora]

as long as there is Anonymous Coward, slashdot still has hope.

Re:"Certain (trivial) circumstances"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it as a cost cutting measure. //

Honestly your Worship, you can't expect Scotland Yard to allocate the resources necessary to investigate every allegation of wrongdoing on the internet AND do so in a timely fashion with credible testimony or actual evidence, while meeting the requirements of the World Bank's austerity program. I mean REALLY... Margaret Thatcher would rollover if she thought there was a chance that the globalization paradigm that she and Ronald RayGun began might be jeopardized by such trivialities. And what of the rest of society? Do you really think we can police them as well as the World Wide Web at the same time we focus on the New World Disorder?

More Nonsense

[omb]

1. Who will register with Nominet after this? it is not like there is a shortage, this is just another MBA empty suite, and hat!

2. If they do this to you sue them at the same time as the Police and CPS.

3. There will be NO examples, as getting an expartite injunction with evidence would take an afternoon, but in the UK you must post a bond for damages

Re:pornography is literally 'pictures of prostitut

[Anonymous Cowpat]

GREEK ALERT!

Hand over the geek card, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ministry of _Silly_ Walks. Hand over the geek card, please.

Re:Hand over the geek card, please.

[Chelloveck]

Ministry of _Silly_ Walks. Hand over the geek card, please.

It's a fair cop. But society is to blame!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:defining "serious"?

[Errol backfiring]

No. This comes from the Ministry of "Serious" Walks. Neither the crime (copyright infringement? come on!), nor the agency is in any way serious.

Copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

While clearly not as serious as the other other crimes under the perview of SCA 2007 Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime. A quick search for popular british brand 'links of london' ( though now owned by a Greek company Folli Follie ) on google UK shows many sites selling fake goods.

Many looking like plausible online retailers. British consumers may be falling for there 'great deals' day on day. Whilst of course in the global market place they will just register on another TLD. However ensuring this is not .co.uk is a good way of protecting british consumers providing a level on confidence that cannot be provided by any other TLD ( in the UK ).

Evidence

[dugeen]

SOCA (or their successors) clearly seeking to expand their powers to punish people without evidence. New Labour laws have already made it possible for them to 'seize' money unless the owner can prove that they came by it honestly - this can be authorised by a court without any evidence other than the unsupported word of SOCA personnel.

Our freedom is ending

[luk3Z]

Our freedom is ending...

The Serious and Organized Crime Agency?

[Devoidoid]

Aren't they Buckaroo Banzai's arch enemies?

Suspicion... like Amazon not

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspicion of not collecting sales tax and VAT...
Or like Amazon is being driven out of Calif....

I am suspicious about law that acts punitively on
a suspicion.