Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Best ccTLD To Avoid Confiscation?

First time accepted submitter Pete McCann writes "Given the recent spate of domain seizures by the U.S. government, it seems that registrations in any U.S.-hosted registry (like the gTLDs .com, .net, and .org) aren't stable places to put content that the U.S. government might find objectionable. I am wondering, are there any ccTLD registries out there that have an open registration policy and are willing to stand up to censorship demands from the USG? There is this list of ccTLDs with open registration policies, and the current MAFIAAFIRE redirection list looks very Tuvalu-heavy. Where would you register a site for maximum resistance to confiscation?"

12 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Best domain not to get stolen: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .onion

    1. Re:Best domain not to get stolen: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can write 1+1=3 on paper thousands of times and it doesn't make it right. It's reputable sources which matter.

  2. Re:It can't just be me by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.

  3. Re:It can't just be me by gerumato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

    Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

    Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.

  4. Re:It can't just be me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

    Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

    Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.

    Spoken like a true douchebag. Fuck everyone, gimme free shit.

  5. Re:It can't just be me by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

    Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

    You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. (LOL!)

    But only slightly less well known is this, never assume that the US government acts in accordance with the public good. You don't have to infringe copyright to have your website confiscated any more than you have to commit an act of terrorism to be branded a terrorist. Or vice versa.

    I suspect that you are correct in suggesting that normal websites with normal website crap aren't going to attract any attention from the government, or anyone else for that matter, but attack Big Business or suggest that some semblance of real Democracy should be a concern, and you will attract their attention.

  6. Re:First Amendment mean nothing? by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can you speak if you have no mouth, Mr. Anderson?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Re:It can't just be me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, he's a true douchebag for wanting his day in court and a chance to defend himself BEFORE the gov seizes his domain. What an ass. Next he'll be asking for something silly like being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

  8. Re:It can't just be me by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The burden of proving that their website didn't have copyrighted content on it is on the person whose domain was confiscated. Having to go to court for things such as this would just burden the government. What a bother! You don't want to burden the government, do you?

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  9. Re:content by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that's not the question.

    ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'. haven't you been paying attention to how foul our laws have gone?

    what's safe today may not be safe tomorrow. its wise to assume the US is hostile to free and open internet communication. essentially, this is the root of the problem and we have lost our trust from the world by our own bad behavior. I LIVE HERE and I don't trust us, fwiw.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  10. US will and wont? LOL WUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You really think if the US takes the time to take down your site, some other country won't? Believe it or not, the US is the freest country in the world, give or take periods when your Lord of the Manor legalizes prostitution to pacify the masses.

    Logical fallacy of the world #1: absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence

    Just because you don't know if your government seizes domains doesn't mean they don't. It just means smart and intelligent people at the New York Times and Der Spiegel don't give a shit about your country. /thread

  11. Re:First Amendment mean nothing? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah it doesn't seem that he ever said that (although it's easy to believe he did, considering the other things that came out of his mouth):

    http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel