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?"
.onion
The best TLD out there, and the only one that you can be sure you will not be taken down from.
Overall...the only way to really avoid it is to avoid central registrars that are beholden to their political masters.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.
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.
It's not a free speech issue. You're still free to say what you want, it's just that people have to locate you by IP address rather than domain name. A problem which really needs to be remedied.
As for the topic, none of the ones people use in a browser are going to be safe as long as ICANN is responsible ultimately.
My understanding is that the domain seizure by the U.S. government works by requiring DNS servers to resolve the domain name to a government IP address in cases where the domain is registered/hosted outside the U.S.. I really don't think it makes much difference what tld you use.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I started being partial to
Trolling is a art,
What about sites where users/visitors can put content? What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere or your domain confiscated?
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.
How can you speak if you have no mouth, Mr. Anderson?
Have gnu, will travel.
.I2P
http://www.i2p2.de/
How about just create domain names using letters A through F and get creative with IPv6 hexadecimal abbreviated addresses. ;)
No DNS to legally hijack, as long as you can reasonably hold the IP address and scale solely through anycasting.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
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.
Spoken like a true douchebag. Fuck everyone, gimme free shit.
That's freedom. As in
All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.
not pretty damn close. It's a shame that the douchebags make up the majority, i.e. the public, i.e. the people that the government is supposed to represent. (As opposed to the people that OWN the government, you know, the corporate persons who hold all the marbles?) Who the fuck are you?
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!
You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.
Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80
From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml
-------------------
Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures
While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.
Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:
The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.
On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.
As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.
The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances ar
In the long run, .cn seems to be the only one that won't bow down quickly to US demands.
It's kinda hard to stand up against the schoolyard bully if everyone's sucking up to him so they don't get beaten.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What content are you going to offer that you feel may be subject to American censorship?
Okay, for starters you say you're worried about the U.S. gov't seizing your domain, but then you go and mention the MAFIAAFIRE list. Okay, so you want to run a torrent tracker... big surprise.
I see an inherent problem with CCTLDs: you may expect the ones from obscure nations to be "safer", because, well, they're obscure and that government might not give two shits about U.S. laws. But then on the converse, they may give a shit about U.S. money. The poor nations love bribery just as much as the militarized corporatocracy some 300 million people call "home".
The only real way to dodge the MAFIAA is thus:
1. destroy the MAFIAA
No, really. You either take the risk, and best case some ungrateful leech stools your site to the authorities and you lose your domain, worst case you get sued for six quadrillion dollars. The only other option is to launch World War 3, win, become supreme leader of earth, have every last motherfuckin' corporate robber baron drawn and quartered, and then you're pretty much free to post whatever the hell you want on (what's left of) the internet.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
What about sites where users/visitors can put content?
Sites to which subscribers contribute material are covered by the OCILLA safe harbor, codified as 17 USC 512.
What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere
In that case, I'd be not liable under U.S. copyright law unless I had first received and ignored a takedown request. But the limitation on liability appears to apply only to material contributed by a subscriber, not material contributed by the operator of the site.
And what if the server isn't on US soil?
But let's say it is.
Confiscating a rack actually requires effort, manpower, expense. If a few guys have to go over to the data center, there is a reasonable chance that at least somebody might stop and check to see that what they're doing makes sense. ("Hey guys, this piece of paper says whitehouse.com; I'm not sure we should be pulling the plug on this computer that has a posit note on it, saying whitehouse.gov.") There will be witnesses at the data center. There will be more documentation. There won't be due process as we normally think of it, but at least there's a process of some sort, and our bizarre seizure laws are something that the public at least has the theoretical ability to lobby for change.
Subverting DNS requires a button click, can be done accidentally, and can be done by anyone who finds flaws in the authentication system. Some day your .com domain may go offline via the government's censorship mechanism, simply because some script kiddie wanted to show off that he could do it, not because you embarrassed the government.
Requiring physical action improves security. It filters out less-committed adversaries (and there's a countless horde of those out there on the internet) and creates more opportunities to detect errors.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
NameCoin is a non-centralized, peer-to-peer DNS using the .bit TLD. It cannot be confiscated unless the entire p2p DNS network is shut down.
I would not recommend .tv as VeriSign is the registry operator and they would be happy to disable your domain name, just like .com/.net.
Tonga is another tiny island nation - .to - but the registry has a web portal for direct registration (so you don't have to use a registrar which may bow to pressure) and they have a very private WHOIS policy. Almost no details can be gleaned from putting accurate information as the registrant contact.
I would recommend any ccTLD that allows direct registration through an HTTPS session. Avoid the registrar middlemen for ultimate control over your domain. However, you will be responsible for manually renewing your domain! And be sure to read the registry's fine print for how they may revoke a domain. Ensure the contact data is accurate so you can get any email / snail mail correspondence. This will help you defend your domain in case of a dispute, and help prevent against unauthorized transfers of the domain. Make sure the email account on record is not easily hijacked.
Why bother with a domain name at all? Just use an IP address. Yes, unglamorous and looks uncredible, but it will stay up, right?
Yeah but let's say the internet had been around while Ray Parker Jr. was still writing and recording songs...
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You have no rights!
Move to Saudi Arabia. They'll give you all the rights you can buy.
Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.
When you get to Saudi Arabia, learn to fact-check.
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
There was a big change. The moment Obama was elected he changed from a liberal to a neoconservative.
"What a TWIST!" - M. Night Shyamalan
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I recommend .info, .me, and .ph
http://icefilms.info/ have been around several years now and moved to .info and are hosted in amsterdam I believe.
http://kat.ph/ kickasstorrents changed to .ph to avoid domain confiscation
http://demonoid.me/ Demonoid moved to .me to also avoid domain confiscation as the .ph and .me ignore US requests
You will also have to check into hosting that ignores DMCA requests which are plenty, check Amsterdam hosting sites
http://www.dot.ph/ for registering .ph domains
http://www.domain.me/ for registering .me domains
I've also had a .me domain and I link to torrents, megaupload, rapidshare sites, I had to move my site to a hosting company that ignored DMCA since US sees posting links as illegal which is bullshit. So I moved to a host in amsterdam who told me they do not agree, abide or listen to US laws regarding DMCA when it comes to linking as long as I'm not hosting which was good enough for me.
Now I get tons of spam whining and begging me to remove links... which I just laugh instead of going after the hosts they try to stop me from linking which they can't now.
And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.
True, but some sites were shut down because they had downloads of music that were sent to the site by the record companies for promotion of the music.
Unfortunately, the lawyers don't bother talking to the promotion people.
A domain name is a valuable asset, and as such should be treated as property when it comes to 4th Amendment. Seizures require no indictment, no trial, no conviction. The owners get no notification, no chance to challenge the seizures.
The copyright industry directs its DoJ employees (yes, they have several highly-placed in the Obama DoJ) to take down a domain, the DoJ shows it to a magistrate that only hears their side, and he rubber-stamps the seizure.
They have seized domains so far that were shown to not be engaging in anything illegal. One was basically Google for torrents (of course they're not taking down Google or its torrent results), another was a rap blog that played music given to it by the record labels for promotion purposes, another indexed online sports, and had been twice declared legal in its home country of Spain.
It is a travesty of justice, theft under color of law. Some government employees and their copyright industry handlers need to be in prison.
.info is a gTLD, running under ICANN rules. Since the only IP that ICANN cares about is Intellectual Property, not the Internet Protocol, you can expect that the Trademark Police want to control it. On the other hand, Afilias is registered in Ireland, not the US, so there's some chance of getting due process (to the extent that UDRP gives small players due process), compared to a US-based registrar (who tend to just roll over and play dead when requested.)
But .me is the ccTLD for Montenegro, so even if Afilias is cooperative about following ICANN's rules for .info, they should be using Montenegro's rules for .me. Hopefully you'd at least get a UDRP process before losing your name.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The .is ccTLD has consistently rated as one of the best run ccTLDs out there. In this piece of news item on the ISNIC web site:
https://www.isnic.is/en/news/view?id=203
That basically says that they will take down domains only if one of three conditions is met:
1. Non payment of registration fees
2. If the whois records and registration information is incorrect (the are very strict about the technical setup of domains in whois and dns)
3. If the cops show up with a court order (has never happened in 25 years of the ccTLD
Also, let's not forget this:
http://immi.is/
The Icelanders are going to make their country a safe haven for freedom of expression and the press, so the legal framework will be there for this tld to be the safest in the foreseeable future.