Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Ever Criminal Arrest For Domain Name Theft

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the slowly-catching-up-with-the-times dept.

Security 294

Domain Name News writes "Until recently, there hasn't been a case of a domain theft where the thief was caught and arrested. However, on July 30th, Daniel Goncalves was arrested at his home in Union, New Jersey and charged in a landmark case, the first criminal arrest for domain name theft in the United States. 'Cases of domain name theft have not typically involved a criminal prosecution because of the complexities, financial restraints and sheer time and energy involved. If a domain name is stolen, the victim of the crime in most cases would need experience with the technical and legal intricacies associated with the domain name system. To move the case forward, they would also need a law enforcement professional who understands the case or is willing to take the time to learn. For example, the Angels told us that in their case they called their local law enforcement in Florida who sent a uniformed officer in a squad car to their home. The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?"'"

cancel ×

294 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Met One of The OG Domain Thiefs (5, Funny)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931615)

Back in 1995, I was working as a salesman at Circuit City and sold a VCR to Steve Cohen, the guy who stole sex.com. He was bragging to me about how he'd been offered a million bucks for it but wasn't going to sell. Then he ended up returning the VCR. What a tool.

Re:Met One of The OG Domain Thiefs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931679)

Well of course he returned the VCR. How could you steal sex.com and not know that you can get all the porn you want for free off the internet. Who needs a VCR.

What is the ethnic background of Daniel Goncalves? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931963)

What is the ethnic background of Daniel Goncalves? Is he Hispanic?

Re:What is the ethnic background of Daniel Goncalv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932243)

Goncalves (*) is a Portuguese or Brasilian surname. (*) the "c" should be a "c with cedilha" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedilla [wikipedia.org] ) And your question was racist. What difference does it make the racial background of the accused.

Re:What is the ethnic background of Daniel Goncalv (1, Offtopic)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932393)

Asking a question about the ethnicity of a name does not automatically make one a racist. If he would have followed up with "because Hispanics are known for stealing" then that would be a racist statement. Simply inquiring about someone's name is not racist in and amongst itself.

Re:What is the ethnic background of Daniel Goncalv (3, Funny)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932463)

Asking a question about the ethnicity of a name does not automatically make one a racist.

I know. Calm down people. Go have some beers and make up.

Re:What is the ethnic background of Daniel Goncalv (1, Offtopic)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932665)

Racist, my ass. I've never seen or heard the name Goncalves used anywhere except in reference to this one guy. Surely the name isn't unique - it came from somewhere. GP posted, apparently wondering where it DID come from. Your post satisfied my curiosity about the origin of the name. Thank you for that.

Beyond the origin of a name, there ARE TIMES when it helps to know an ethnic background. People all the time make reference to the fact that this an Ameri-centric board. Knowing ethnic background can tell as much about a person as knowing his nationality. If questioning Goncales' name is racist, then every bastid who identifies himself as American, or European, or Asian is a racist as well. Posters sometimes identify themselves as Protestant, Catholic, or Wiccan to help make a point, or to help understand a point. They must all be bigots of one type or another as well.

Again - thanks for the info, but try not to judge the question. GP might be racist, but the question is neutral.

Re:Met One of The OG Domain Thiefs (4, Funny)

dhermann (648219) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932043)

Wow, what an amazing but totally unverifiable story!

Re:Met One of The OG Domain Thiefs (1)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932547)

I actually tweeted it during the blip that was the #lameclaimtofame meme on Twitter. Of course, my lame claims to fame are legion. I put all those tweets into a single blog post [brainhandles.com] if anyone's interested. They're all lame, and all true.

Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931629)

The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?".'"

Why can't they be smart and well-versed in all things, like IT Professionals?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931705)

I don't think it was intended to be calling police officers dumb. Rather, I think the whole idea is that of law enforcement having to deal with obscure technical things that are totally outside of their expertise. Which is why this story is so interesting. The line is starting to blur between cyberspace and meatspace.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931739)

I don't think it was intended to be calling police officers dumb. Rather, I think the whole idea is that of law enforcement having to deal with obscure technical things that are totally outside of their expertise. Which is why this story is so interesting. The line is starting to blur between cyberspace and meatspace.

So long as the cop never uses the term "meatspace" he'll be a better man than both of us.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932527)

There is no such thing as cyberspace.
This sounds more like a civil matter than a criminal one, or at least a case of fraud. The fact that a local constable was called when maybe a DA would be more appropriate blurs nothing.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931715)

Because people who dedicate themselves to the service of others, the improvement of their community, and betterment of society are stupid fascist pigs, and should be treated as such. Right slashdot?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931795)

Because people who dedicate themselves to the service of others, the improvement of their community, and betterment of society are stupid communist pigs, and should be treated as such. Right slashdot?

ftfy?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (-1, Flamebait)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931805)

Bingo.

Anyone who would go to work everyday and put pot smokers in jail, use a taser on people without knowing if they have a heart condition (and you'll notice they're now using tasers on people who don't follow their instructions fast enough instead of people who pose a threat), and enforce the fucked up laws we have in the United States is a stupid, fascist pig. You are correct.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931907)

That's one of the more ignorant posts I've read today. Seriously, sure some police officers are like that, and they deserve to be locked up, but the majority are not. I don't know where you got that idea.
I guess you don't here about John Police Officer not hurting anyone today on the news.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931919)

The same fascist pigs that you won't hesitate to call if you hear someone breaking into your house at 2:00 in the morning?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0, Offtopic)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932107)

If someone is breaking into my home at 2am, they better hope they can run faster than buckshot. The call is for the cops or coroner to come clean up the mess.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1, Troll)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932469)

That is, as long as you keep that shotgun out of the hands of the perp. Lots of people end up at the wrong end of their own weapons when they try to defend their homes at 2am.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (3, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932757)

Lots? Define lots. Is lots more than or less than the number of people who pull out a weapon and make the thieves run off? Is lots more than or less than the number of lives saved by guns in home. Is lots just a number that people who hate guns pull out of their asses?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932389)

except that sometime they arrest you instead of the one who broke-in... (like Obama's friend...)

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1, Offtopic)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931937)

Not sure if you picked up on the sarcasm there Joe. And BTW, pot smoking is ILLEGAL. Police officers are just doing their job. If you have a problem with the law, VOTE or STFU. I'm not even going to go into the vagaries of arm-chair second guessing the decisions of every instance of taser-use and the feasibility of asking about heart conditions during hand-to-hand conflict. I don't see how using a taser makes them fascist pigs in any case, but hey.

and enforce the fucked up laws we have in the United States is a stupid, fascist pig

Like, you know, the abolition on murder, rape, theft, arson, etc.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932071)

just doing their job?

Where have I heard that before?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (3, Insightful)

horatiocain (1199485) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932145)

If (haha) homosexuality was illegal and the duty of police was to arrest and imprison those 'mos, would they still just be doing their job? Or would they be signing up to do something wrong?

If I get paid to spam people, am I just doing my job when I spam your email? What if I get paid to write anti-Semitic propaganda? Would you say a certain type of person takes those jobs?

There is a moral imperative not to accept a job the duties of which are corrupt. That's pretty easy to understand.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932255)

What's truly ironic is that the anti-taser nonsense exposes the real goals of the nutbag/hoplophobic groups.

The American Criminal Liberties Union, National Association for the Ascendancy of Crappy People, New Black Panthers, et al spent an amazing amount of time in the late '90s/early '00s suing police departments across the country, demanding more "nonlethal" weaponry be used by police (because if you draw a gun, you had better be prepared to shoot to kill [wikipedia.org] .)

Thus we wound up with cops carrying pepper spray (useful only at a range of melee combat: bad thought) and then the Taser, which is normally nonlethal unless someone fits certain conditions; sadly, one of those conditions is "hopped up on drugs like cocaine."

Once they'd gotten that concession, however, the anti-police groups weren't done. Now they want to harm the police even further. The goal is to make it impossible for the police to ever do their jobs. Thus, if they taser someone who's trying to start a fight, and that person happens to have a heart condition or turns out to be on drugs that cause the body to mimic one, and it sends them into cardiac arrest or arrhythmia, then the nutbag groups scream bloody murder about how the cops "should have known" and shouldn't have used the taser.

It's all about the fact that they hate the cops. I agree that there are cops out there that are dicks, but the vast majority of cops are incredible people. They do a job that is almost always thankless. They deal with people every day who approach them with incredibly disrespectful attitudes or try to bait them (see: Henry Louis Gates Jr the Racist Professor), merely because they think they can get away with it or because they have authority issues. They deal with working 12-14 hour shifts, because first they have to work their beat time, and then they have to do the paperwork AFTER their patrol hours. They have to deal with the stress of wondering, every time they put on their uniform, "is today the day some drunk/stoned motherfucker pulls a gun and instead of me coming home, it's the police chief/sergeant coming to my door to tell my wife and kids that I'm dead or in the hospital." They walk into every situation wondering if some stupid motherfucker is going to do something stupid that ends in them getting stuck in lawsuit hell. They get paid an incredibly small paycheck for the enormous amount of work they do.

Re-read what I just posted. Now the next time you see a police officer, whether it is because you got pulled over for speeding or just that they happen to be in a store at the same time you are, tell them THANK YOU for doing the job they do.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (3, Funny)

hummassa (157160) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932445)

Your post is intelligent, well-tought, well-written, and your argument is consistent and relevant to the discussion at hand. Obviously, you are facing being banned by /. :-D

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932493)

Now the next time you see a police officer, whether it is because you got pulled over for speeding or just that they happen to be in a store at the same time you are, tell them THANK YOU for doing the job they do.

Should I thank the homophobe pig for busting queers in the park while letting the straight people go (because straight people having sex in the park is romantic)?

Should I thank him for arresting people that buy too much cold medicine because we make the assumption that they'll make meth with it?

Should I thank him for arresting people and impounding their car over a joint in the ashtray?

And of course, the idea that a taser is only lethal to someone "hopped up on drugs" is absurd, and the evidence doesn't support it.

National Association for the Ascendancy of Crappy People, New Black Panthers

I think we all see you're agenda here. Quite a departure from your usual "kill all niggers" post, eh?

No, cops are NOT good people. Cops are immoral scumbags, and they shouldn't be thanked.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (3, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932655)

As perplexing as it is for me to disagree with someone who links to Jeff Cooper, even if it is Wikipedia, the idea that cops need to be better armed for safety reasons is far overblown.

In the US being a cop is safer than being a fisherman. And the relatively few cops who are hurt or killed on the job get it from traffic accidents, not suspects shooting them or beating them or the like. So if you really want to help keep cops safe you should argue to abolish high speed chases. But since traffic accidents don't play well on TV but 2 guys robbing a bank in body armor does, the change cops get is an AR they'll never used in the trunk of their cruiser while they choke slam the guy who on the verge of a diabetic coma because they haven't been trained well enough to recognize he isn't drunk.

They'll shoot that AR once a year, when they qual, and that is it.

I'm usually someone's guest at the SHOT show. In the five years I've been going the cop supply people have slowly merged to become indistinguishable from the military supply people, pitching SWAT level gear as indispensible for every beat cop out there. This is almost all pointless chest thumping. Most of that gear will never be used.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (2, Informative)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932137)

Robert Peel would disagree:

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932453)

Because people who dedicate themselves to the service of others, the improvement of their community, and betterment of society are stupid fascist pigs, and should be treated as such.

No, those are the good cops and deserve to be treated with as much respect as they treat the public with. However, not all cops are good ones. It would be pretty naive to think that there aren't at least a small percentage of stupid fascists who are also cops. It would also be naive to think ALL cops fit into this category. Right common sense?

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932471)

Because people who dedicate themselves to the service of others, the improvement of their community, and betterment of society are stupid fascist pigs, and should be treated as such. Right slashdot?

No, they're stupid socialist pigs. And for that, they deserve the sort of compassion you would reserve for the retarded.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932077)

Obviously, we need cybercops !

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1)

invertedflyboy (300359) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932403)

I'm ashamed I just giggled a little bit.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932233)

Oh My God. I love that this was modded as "Insightful".

How full of yourselves are you?

Wow. I am pretty sure it was a snarky comment. I could be wrong, in which case, holy arrogant asses, batman.

Re:Oh, Those Dumb Police Officers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932377)

because then they would be, you know, IT professionals?

What a stupid shit storm (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932721)

Seriously, you tell the average person that your domain name was stolen and they'll look at you like your speaking Martian.

Big Fucking Deal, someone implied that a Police Officer may have as much of a grasp of how the internet works as the average person.

When the Police send a uniformed Police Officer to your location after telling the police that your domain was stolen I would imagine that one question that would be asked would be "What is a domain?". This is not a jab at cops for being dumb, because they tend not to be dumb.

There is more story here than the last 3 words in the summary, but you wouldn't know that from reading the comments.

nice stereotype. (5, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931651)

The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?".

Right before the cop knocked your pocket-protector-wearing geek ass out.

Re:nice stereotype. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932671)

Gandhi has some of the best quotes of any man ever.

"I'm hungry."

"My feet hurt."

What he actually did (4, Informative)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931661)

Quoth TFA:

Daniel Goncalves, the 25 year old law firm computer technician arrested on Thursday, reportedly hacked in to the Angelâ(TM)s AOL email account, used that information to retrieve the login details for the P2P.com from the Godaddy.com domain account. Goncalves performed an internal âoedomain pushâ transfer,which in effect transfered the domain name to another Godaddy account that he owned. Goncalves reportedly also falsified Paypal.com transaction records in an attempt to cover his trail and provide evidence that made it appear that he purchased the domain name for $900 from the Angels. The domain was listed in the name of Daniel Louvado during this time period (a bogus name consisting of Goncalves first name and his fiances last name).

In late 2006, Goncalves put the domain name P2P.com up for sale on eBay.com and on September 24, 2006 the eBay.com auction for the domain P2P.com closed in the amount of $111,000.

Re:What he actually did (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931917)

How'd he falsify paypal records? You wouldn't think that's a smart move, as it only adds evidence of intent and further charges... and then to put it in your wife's last name?

    He deserved to be caught. Ballsy little fucker worked for a law firm? Yikes. Wonder what he's had his hand in there?

It's funny because it's true! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931683)

The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?

Law enforcement people are fucking morons!

Seriously, they're probably smart people without any moral compass. I mean, how could anyone enforce the fucked up laws of the United States and still sleep at night? If this were 1940s Germany, the same people that are cops now would be concentration camp guards.

Come on... (5, Insightful)

CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931685)

The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?"

I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!

Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.

Re:Come on... (4, Interesting)

Roogna (9643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931787)

You know, it didn't sound like they were trying to imply the cop was dumb. But that the legal system itself isn't able to redirect these kinds of reported crimes to the proper people within. Such as this, where for a domain name theft, they sent a officer, to the door of a house. Obviously that would be his first question, because he was the incorrect layer of law enforcement to even have responded to such a report, not because he was dumb. Now on the flip side, they probably shouldn't have been calling local police over it in the first place, but instead probably (and this is my guess, I may very well be incorrect myself) the FBI. But that's more the point, depending on the "crime" one may have to contact any of a number of different places and it's not all that clear, I think even to law enforcement professionals, let alone those -not- in law enforcement, on who to contact for what.

Re:Come on... (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932517)

Why even the FBI? Can't you make a complaint to ICANN [icann.org] and have them resolve the dispute? Also since it was a godaddy account that was hacked, couldn't they also complain to godaddy?

Re:Come on... (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932773)

ICANN will only respond to trademark disputes.

Re:Come on... (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931867)

Some departments don't even have Active Directory yet. I would expect those are the ones which are being referred to.

Re:Come on... (1)

Anonymously Brave (1611221) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931897)

The author didn't make these generalizations. You are going out on a limb here. The point is that there is no real "go to" person/place/entity that enforces the law in cyberspace. Who do you call if you did have a domain stolen? This can happen to anyone. Regardless of whether one police officer knew what a domain name was or not , it's clear in this story that there's no real easy way to get a domain name back once it is is stolen.

Re:Come on... (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932423)

more like misappropriation than theft then...

Rebuttal (1, Troll)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931929)

The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?" I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate! Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.

Officer A: So then I pull up to this house, knock on the door and this 50 year old woman answers the door. I think I got the wrong house but you know those tech nerds ...
Officer B: Still living in his mother's basement?
Officer A: Yeah, dude's whiter than paste and has maybe 90 lbs of meat on him. So I'm cuffing the guy and putting his head down so he gets into the car and the kid feels like a noodle and I say, 'Ya know you should try illegally downloading P90X.' and you can imagine the first thing he asked was, 'What the hell is P90X?'
Officer B: Hahaha, those hacker nerds, man if only they got laid more often instead of stealing a 'domain'--whatever that is.
Officer A: Yeah, now they expect us to police virtual property too ... where will it end?

There, now everybody's made fun of everybody. Feel better?

Re:Rebuttal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932103)

I enjoyed that, an easy read and funny. Thanks, sir.

Re:Rebuttal (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932117)

Is it bad that I have no idea what a P90X is?

Re:Rebuttal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932201)

Is it bad that I have no idea what a P90X is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P90X

Re:Rebuttal (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932231)

Ah closure. thank you.

Re:Rebuttal (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932441)

it's the Pentium @ 90MHz with the floating point error in the firmware... :-)

Re:Come on... (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931943)

The majority of people I know would not know what you mean when you tell them that your domain was stolen, the average response would be "What's a domain?" Followed shortly by, "How in the hell do you steal a domain?"

Its not a cop specific response. In fact you can consider it a technical legal question, "What is the legal definition of a domain and how does it apply to this case?" may sound less insulting but it is the same question.

I've heard they are all racist, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931969)

But that's just what I've heard.

Re:Come on... (1)

Ggiant (1597951) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931981)

Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.

I was going to say the same thing. Okay, maybe in 1999 or 2000 that would have been funny and appropriate but saturation is nearly complete as far as web use goes and I'm pretty sure that most cops, generally being 25-55 years old and living in the same society as the rest of us, are quite aware how the internet works.

Re:Come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932661)

But if they were smart enough to know what a domain is, why aren't they smart enough to not be a cop?

Re:Come on... (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932205)

Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.

      Yes, we should all just roll over and pretend to be happy when criminal charges are brought against breaches of civil law. It's the new game in the US, has been for the past decade or so. I'm happy that the rate of violent crime in the US is so low that law enforcement has time to tase 70 year olds because their sons were speeding, tase and pepper spray epileptics having seizures, and arrest people for "stealing" a domain name.

Re:Come on... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932271)

Its easy to make these jokes when they have been known to actively turn down applicants with high IQs.

Re:Come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932283)

to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting

Actually, it sounds to me like they don't know they need a technical person. Ok, I can live with that... but what happens when you accidentally get transferred to the police department and you have a medical emergency? If you told the person at the other end of the wire that you were suffering from a disease, they would probably do the same thing: send some random police officer on the site to investigate. He's the one that should find out as much as possible about the reported crime scene EVEN if it's an emergency or not. They're risking our lives by being illiterate.

PS: What's your badge number?

Re:Come on... (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932811)

I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!

They won't hire you if you're too smart.

No I'm not trolling I'm serious:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_56314.html [ananova.com]
http://northernmuckraker.blogspot.com/2008/08/too-smart-to-be-cop.html [blogspot.com]
http://irradiatedcat.blogspot.com/2008/06/too-smart-to-be-cop.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.thepostroad.com/news/2000/20000912.new.london.pd.robert.jordan.html [thepostroad.com]

one domain, if you might remember. (1)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931743)

sex.com

Intricies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931751)

I suppose intricies is the plural of intrex. So what is an intrex?

Re:Intricies? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931817)

Opposite of extrex.

Re:Intricies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28931825)

A shortened form of intern-sex?

DNN? (3, Informative)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931773)

Is anybody else in shock that there is actually a website devoted entirely to Domain Name News? [domainnamenews.com]

Re:DNN? (1)

French Mailman (773320) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931977)

If there is a big enough market for domain name news, it might be interesting to try and steal that domain name!

Re:DNN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932029)

Idotz.net retweets it all the time >>'

Re:DNN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932127)

Idotz.net retweets it all the time >>'

I read your post as saying...
Idiotz.net retweets it all the time >>'

Re:DNN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932275)

I recently spoke at a conference of domain name peoples, groups, and companies. A bit of humor was in the fact that when someone introduced themselves to me it was rarely about what they had done in life. Rather, they'd come up and say things like "I have oven-dot-com." It was like a competition to own the best domain names. I actually enjoyed it though, and they did have good sessions on developing domains.

Headline should read... (5, Interesting)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931891)

"Sleazy Well-Funded Ex-Attorney Domain Name Speculator Pushes Arrest Of Crooked Hacker." Seriously, the victim here is a cybersquatter.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

Anonymously Brave (1611221) | more than 4 years ago | (#28931997)

Hundreds of businesses and individuals have had domains stolen. Guess they're all sleaze too.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932163)

I don't mena to diminish the problem, or make implications about the other victims. But it looks like the only reason this one ended in an arrest is because the victim was a former legal professional with financial backing and a significant monetary interest in maintaining his, err, portfolio.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932259)

GPP never said that everyone who gets a domain name stolen is sleazy. He did say that these particular guys who got their domain name stolen are sleazy, and as far as it's possible to tell from the TFA, he's right.

Re:Headline should read... (4, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932069)

Yeah, I was thinking that too. There really aren't any good guys in this case.

I know it would open up a huge can of worms, but I've often thought that domain name ownership ought to be like land owenership under the Homestead Act. That is, if you're the first person to apply for a domain, you get it for free, but you have to "improve" it, i.e., do something with it other than just sitting on it and hoping someone will pay you a bunch of money, in a certain amount of time or you don't get to keep it. Impractical, I know, but the whole idea of domain name squatting is just irritating as hell.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932413)

Some time ago I was looking for some PHP code help and found a promising-looking forum. Turns out it was mostly buying and selling domain names. These people improve the domains in terms of SEO and page rank, but in reality it is all a load of crap after the domain switches hands a few times, gets a way, way trumped up price, and eventually some fool has paid way too much based on perceived value. Gee, sounds a lot like the real estate market bust...

Re:Headline should read... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932115)

Don't bother reading the article since you can obviously divine truth from the summary. But, excuse us mere mortals for thinking this is actually a case of theft since the victim hacked an account and stole login information.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

dhermann (648219) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932171)

The poor, innocent, AOL-mail-hacking, Paypal-record-falsifying, cybersquatter, you mean? The one whose defense is that he says he convinced three domain speculators to sell a domain for which they paid $160,000 to him for $900? Yeah, he's totally the victim.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932673)

No, he's saying the speculators that he stole the domain from (and unlike, say, copyright infringement, someone was deprived of their use of the intellectual property, therefore, it was theft,) are the victims, but that they're sleazy for being speculators.

Re:Headline should read... (1)

ultraexactzz (546422) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932693)

Seriously, the victim here is a cybersquatter.

I agree, except that the cybersquatter is apparently a multi-millionaire professional athlete. So, I expect very little sympathy for him.

Re:Headline should read... (0, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932761)

Cybersquatter.

Cyber is computer related, I got that.

Squat is what females do to releive bladder pressure.

Cybersquatter. Hmm. Computers now come in genders? This gives a whole new meaning to "next gen"! I can breed my own computers!!

Obligatory grammar Nazism (3, Informative)

bwintx (813768) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932015)

Several references to "Angel's" in TFA should be "Angels'," meaning the possessive form of the plural proper noun Angels.

So much for my positive karma... [sigh]

Re:Obligatory grammar Nazism (1)

bwintx (813768) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932057)

Even more onerous -- a grammar-Nazi reply to myself. I should have punctuated that so it would say:

Several references to "Angel's" in TFA should be "Angels'" -- meaning ...

A slightly different way to resolve this (3, Interesting)

Rastl (955935) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932061)

Mind you, I heard the story from the person who had the domain name stolen and then returned. The story may have been embellished for effect. But it's still darn good.

Someone I know owns a highly profitable and highly desirable domain name for shall we say, marital aids. He got smart and registered it in the early days and it's very much a thriving site. One day, someone stole it along with about a dozen other highly profitable domains.

This gentleman contacted some of the other victims and they were willing to help out with catching who did this and with getting their domains back.

The thieves were employees of Network Solutions and had planned on skipping the country very soon after the incidents. However, the victims pooled their money and hired a 'bounty hunter' to track down and find the thieves. He did, and for a little extra money the domains were returned without question.

The person who told me the story has been silent on what happened to the thieves. He's leaving that to the imagination but I have a feeling they're at least quite sorry that they tried this stunt.

I think that was much more satisfying than going through the court systems, etc. Not that I endorse taking the law into your own hands but when the courts aren't set up to deal with this type of crime sometimes you have to deal with it through side channels.

Re:A slightly different way to resolve this (2, Insightful)

pmarini (989354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932557)

it's funny to notice that it's exactly like this that the Mafia started... providing state-like "services" from "alternate" sources... and then the people became "addicted" to them... and now it lives on... from within :-)

Domains for Cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932065)

Come down and sell us your unwanted domain names! Domains for Cash at Good Ol'e Toms.

Worth Noting (1)

cl0secall (449952) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932143)

I thought it was worth noting that it took a former DOJ prosecutor and investor to "bring this guy down", and even then, it was an uphill battle.

Black Box Network Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28932173)

Network security should ensure that authorized users get convenient and easy access to information, while preventing unauthorized access or tampering. There are many ways to improve network security through basic physical security. Products such as biometric authentication, locking cabinets, security cameras, KVM switches and choosing fiber cable over copper cable, all aid in keeping private information private. Use a surge protector to protect your equipment from over voltages that can damage your delicate electronic equipment. A solid network security plan can be found on the Black Box Network Services white paper on physical network security: http://tinyurl.com/nsflf7

Poor passwords, poor password procedures... (3, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932193)

And this is why businesses shouldn't email out customer passwords in emails.

I get angry every time I get an email sayign "thanks for joining, your password is : xtyzseh85". REALLY? Like I just didn't enter that on your site. Also it suggests that the password is stored in clear text in their database, a big worry.

What if you forget your password, you might ask? Well then you email out a temporary password, and set a flag in your database that the person is required to change their password when they log in. This vastly reduces the window of opportunity a thief would have (technically they could follow the "forgotten email?" path on the website, and intercept the emailed temporary password. Maybe the solution is temporary passwords sent by text to account holder phone, or one of those "what is your favourite colour?" questions before the password email is sent).

Second issue - people using poor passwords. These people clearly had the keys to their $100k+ accounts available behind a paper screen door. Should we blame Yahoo! for this?

Note that the crime is still entirely down to the criminal who did it, and not the people for having poor passwords, nor the registrar who allowed the domain transfer in good faith (although there must be questions asked about their notification procedures, the owners should have got an email about the transfer, and thus should have been able to get this sorted out BEFORE the domain auction was finished).

Re:Poor passwords, poor password procedures... (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932619)

Because in almost all the cases it's so very hard to change the password.

Most of the time they email you when you forgot your password. It's your fault for not changing it after you can get into your account. Or can you suggest a better way to do this? snail mail you a new password? text you it?

Of COURSE the government prosecuted the case: (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932261)

It was a matter of IMMINENT (and EMINENT) domain.... Otherwise they'd be abandoning claim over a landmark case... Besides domain thieves, it has to worry about domain/cyber squatters complicating the land rush...

Why we need to break the govt's monopoly (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932295)

To move the case forward, they would also need a law enforcement professional who understands the case or is willing to take the time to learn.

This may come as a real shock to a lot of Americans, but it used to be that if you and your attorney could make a reasonable argument to a general district court judge that a crime had been committed, YOU could bring criminal charges. You and your attorney would be the prosecution.

*Cue platitudes about our litigious society*

The general posse comitatus approach was superior to what we have today. It had its abuses, but people tend to not grasp just how utterly powerless they are today to get wrongs corrected, to fight back against corruption, etc. In this day, it is literally impossible to bring charges against the powerful without the support of other powerful people who are sympathetic to your argument. Back in the day, if a powerful man were hiding behind his wealth and cronies, 20 armed men could haul him out of his house, shoot up the sheriff if he were on the take, and dump the SOB in a court if they had evidence.

Wet Crime Over (1)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932325)

"Don't do the crime, If you can't do the time." "S/he ain't worth the time." The latter one simply means if you're thinking about hurting someone for whatever reason make sure s/he is worth the time you might have to serve. Wet crimes are done by individuals for their own gain. There's no degree of separation between them and the crime. It's their hormones talking. In this case the guy stole a domain with a sexy name. The idea of the name had to juice him up to the point where he got stupid enough to try to pull it off first hand. A crime involving an amount over $X will usually put you in a different arena with much stiffer penalties. Petty criminals with drug habits shoplift all day every day and just wind their way in and out of court without much of a care. The real criminal profits are tied to our inability to rationally handle classes. Corporations routinely push the boundaries of criminal activity by playing off individual tied to criminal activity against the legal entity that is the corporation said criminals work for. Our inability to distinguish criminal activity by a class of people or an entity of a different class order is a virulent criminal ecological niche. Most corporations are also very adept at stealing or defrauding small amounts from each customer in a large customer base and thereby reaping huge criminal gains while forcing investigations for small $ amounts or calling for class action suits.

Where's the FBI? (2, Interesting)

pmarini (989354) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932347)

How is a local enforcement officer involved in a case of trademark/licensing/brand/virtualspace?

Isn't this something that would have FBI jurisdiction, if anything - unless the "crime" requires the help of the Interpol/Europol...

Questions:
- How is this a theft? (I'm sure that Cisco didn't accuse Apple of "theft" for the iPhone name...)
- How is this relevant in the XXI century? Surely it would take another couple of centuries before judges and juries would know anything about digital technologies... (no offence, but while I can understand the crime of falsifying financial transactions, I don't see a "theft" here... more like a joyride instead...)

Have fun, the night is still joung!

Re:Where's the FBI? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932723)

Well, for one thing, Apple didn't deprive Cisco of the use of the iPhone name.

This guy did deprive the legitimate owners of the use of their domain names.

domain name theft? (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932449)

The fact that so few domain criminals are arrested is frightening at the least. I know of at least 20 domains stolen this past year which had open market value of over $10,000 and not a single charge could be brought forward on any of the thieves. Daniel must have been uber-stupid.

grrrr (3, Interesting)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932533)

we had a domain stolen a few years ago at a board i mod. it was active and we lost all traffic instantly. like tfa it was also a p2p domain and also an email diversion. to get back up the admins registered "p2p-zone.com" and felt lucky to get it, but it wasn't the same. i was so po'd i wanted to throttle the arrogant nyc prick who did the snatch. instead i handed it off to the cops and eventually got it back through negotiation, but it took many months. it was our identity for years and we felt terrible when it was taken from us. what a pita. unfortunately because of the time that passed and a new name we were forced to adopt, we have never formally reincorporated it. we resolve to it but it really isn't "us" anymore as far as the public's concerned.

- js.

squatter!? (1)

BOFslime (178524) | more than 4 years ago | (#28932633)

So you mean to tell me that some hacker swiped a domain from a known and self proclaimed squatter, and I'm supposed to care!? I should hand this Goncalves guy a metal (even though he may very well be a bragging fool). At the very least, I'm not going to feel sorry for Mr and Mrs Angel.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>