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