Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

.UK Registrar Offers To Let Police Close Domain

Posted by samzenpus on from the shut-it-down dept.

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."

3 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. "Certain circumstances"? by Lunaritian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

    1. Re:"Certain circumstances"? by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

  2. Sounds very reasonable. by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.