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!

US Dept. of Justice, ICE Still Seizing Domains

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the gotta-keep-in-practice dept.

Censorship 252

Chaonici writes "Operation In Our Sites, a US initiative to crack down on websites related to online copyright infringement, appears to be ongoing. Rojadirecta is a site that links to (but does not host) broadcasts of major sporting events, including soccer matches. It is highly popular in Spain, where it has prevailed twice in court after its legal status was challenged. However, US authorities have now seized the .org domain of the website without notifying the site's owner or its web host, GoDaddy. Rojadirecta can still be accessed through .com, .es, .me, and .in domains, which are not controlled by the US, but rojadirecta.org currently redirects to this well-known image."

cancel ×

252 comments

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

Why is heading red? (1, Offtopic)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074702)

I saw this heading is red.

Why?

Is slashdot trying to make me read certain articles?

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074716)

Subscribers see articles before regular users, they're "in the future". Sometimes when a brand new article is posted for a short bit, the article shows red because the post date is earlier than the publish date or somesuch.

Re:Why is heading red? (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074728)

Red headings are "mysterious future" articles - the brief preview that subscribers get before they're posted publicly. I've been seeing them occasionally, too, so it's either a glitch with the new design or somehow related to the "Ads Disabled. Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!" box that you get for spending far to much time here without subscribing.

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074756)

And apparently I fail at previewing; s/to/too/g

Re:Why is heading red? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074814)

Glitch in the new design? How would you tell?

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075672)

You'd see one story, and then the same story immediately after it.

Oh wait, is that the Matrix or /.? Probably both

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075328)

a glitch with the new design

I saw them with the old layout, too, so it isn't just from the design change.

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075330)

I suspect it may be the latter, as I've seen it myself even before the redesign.

But why do I still get "slow down, cowboy"? (2)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075828)

... "Ads Disabled. Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!" box that you get for spending far to much time here without subscribing.

I get that.

But I also still get "Slow Down, Cowboy!"

Seems odd. I'd expect the "disable ads" option to be intended to encourage people whose postings are considered valuable and well-considered to post more of them. But the one-per-five-minutes limit for such people (who can often compose postings quickly) seems to work at cross-purposes to the option. So I'd have expected the limit to go away with the offering of the option.

Re:Why is heading red? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074770)

I saw this heading is red.

Why?

Is slashdot trying to make me read certain articles?

Is the head of a red herring.

Re:Why is heading red? (2)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075194)

I'm guessing it's another perk for us longtime users with good karma.
Like having the ability to disable ads (as if that ever stopped us).

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075968)

I get the red bar stories too - and as you can tell from my #, I am new.

Re:Why is heading red? (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076042)

Fair enough, on to the next hypothesis.

Summary is wrong, as usual. (3, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074718)

Rojadirecta.org works as of 4:14 pm, two minutes after this story was posted. No ICE image at all.

Rojadirecta.com has the ICE image.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074774)

As a Time Warner Cable subscriber in the US I get the ICE image. Resolved to 74.81.170.110 . Also google's DNS servers provide the same ICE ip.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (4, Informative)

ethan961 (1895082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074788)

No, it really is seized. As of 4:20 PST I get the ICE image. The change is probably still propagating.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074798)

If on Windows "ipconfig /flushdns" might solve your problem.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (2)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074834)

Not on windows, and never used the site before. Rojadirecta.org keeps coming up with the pic of the creepy looking dude in the top left corner and the following text:

US authorities "steal" our domain rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com!

Fast translation to English: US authorities have blocked access to Rojadirecta.org and now also Rojadirecta.com but we continue and we will continue our service on territorial domain names such as Rojadirecta.es (.me, .in, be...).

We are now on: www.rojadirecta.me www.rojadirecta.es www.rojadirecta.in and in many other domains that are not controlled by US authorities.

Do not send e-mails to our dot com account, the new one ends on .in
SPREAD our new address!

Backwards! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074870)

Ya got that backwards. ;-)

It's turnover and updating of local DNS caches that allows them to get away with this crap in the first place. The solution is to make those DNS entries static, like perhaps embedding them in the local hosts file or using Treewalk or some DNS filtering utility.

Well, either that or bypass DNS entirely by using URL shortcuts that directly reference the IP address....

Re:Backwards! (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075430)

Ya got that backwards. ;-)

Apologies, forgot to grin before/after the posted suggestion.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074800)

Both have the image, as of right Meow.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (2)

The_PHP_Jedi (1320371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074830)

I use Google's DNS service, and the .org domain name appears to be seized, but the .com domain name still points to the owner's servers. However, Rojadirecta's Web site says that both their .com and .org domain names were seized, so I would assume it's only a matter of time before DNS records are updated globally.

That's probably why you're still able to access the Web site via one of the seized domain names.

Cheers.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074852)

I checked to make sure that the site was, in fact, seized before I posted this story.

Assume good faith.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (0)

choongiri (840652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075002)

I don't doubt your good faith, but you didn't check .com (or if you did, you didn't check back to the originating dns servers). It's certainly been seized, whereas the article says it hasn't.

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (1)

Maximus633 (1316457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075070)

The full article states that .com was not sized. :-)

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual. (1)

Maximus633 (1316457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075062)

Its not just the Summary... TFA has the same remark of domain names.

This never happened under the Bush administration. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074828)

This never happened under the Bush administration. But anything even a little bit questionable was viciously scrutenized by the media. BUT, the Obama administration seems to get a pass...

This is really bad!!! Why aren't they being held to the same standard the previous administration was held to?

I guess the media will take notice when radio and tv broadcasters are taken down.

Re:This never happened under the Bush administrati (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074912)

'the media' are lapdogs of the government, both PRESENT and PAST.

what makes you think this is at all localized to one guy or another?

you fell for this '2 party' false dichotomy, didn't you? didn't you??

learn next time that it does NOT MATTER who is in charge. once power is taken, its used by whoever is IN office.

duh.

Re:This never happened under the Bush administrati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075272)

'the media' are lapdogs of the government, both PRESENT and PAST.

Yeah, the media was SOOO in G.W.B.'s pocket. [facepalm]

What time does the nurse bring your meds?

Re:This never happened under the Bush administrati (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075878)

Yeah, the media was SOOO in G.W.B.'s pocket. [facepalm]

Excuse me, you stupid fucking anonymous coward, but you might want to google the name "Judith Miller" and after that "the run-up to the Iraq War + media".

Then never come back here until you've spent some time thinking about what a dumb clown you are.

Re:This never happened under the Bush administrati (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075348)

Dont you mean the government is the lapdog of the media...it sure has seemed that way over the last decade or so.

What Egypt and the US have in common... (5, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074888)

... is a complete lack of due process and the right of appeal in regards to Internet censorship. This is appalling. The entire Western legal code is built on the idea that if you cannot be penalized for something without the right to defend yourself in court. I realize that the seizures are of property and not people, but it's not hard to argue, hey, maybe seizing someone's business and wrongly broadcasting that the owner is a criminal* might negatively impact the owner.

* I'm referring to the case of the hip-hop blogger, who was hyping unreleased material on the request of labels and accused of piracy. I don't know the details of the site in question here.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (0, Troll)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074974)

What property is being seized? These are just bits on a server being set differently, just as downloading a movie without paying for it is sending bits down a wire. If one is "imaginary property" isn't the other? Or is there a double standard?

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (2)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075030)

So, duplicating files is the same as forced data
modification?

Seriously, that's your argument?

You're comparing copying a book, vs burning it.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (3, Insightful)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075126)

If you're going with the book analogy, it's more like copying a book vs. replacing the entire library catalog with an ICE warning card, in the off chance that SOME of the books are incompatible with ICE's views.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (4, Insightful)

tragedy (27079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075208)

There is a double standard. I'm not sure why you can't see that the government is the one applying it. They're the ones who _set_ the rules, we expect them to follow them too.

As for whether or not this is property. It's certainly not conventional property directly. On the other hand, this isn't exactly IP, as you seem to think. This has nothing to do with trade secrets, copyright, or patents. There's an argument to made, perhaps, that it's a trademark issue, since they're putting up their own site (with that one image on it). Of course, I'm against trademark applying to domain names unless the page the domain directs to is itself infringing on a trademark (using someone else's trademark to promote products, or represent them as being from that organization). The money that they paid for a registration of the domain for a set time would seem to be a form of property. In any case theft of service is generally treated as seriously as if the property were real property and is probably a felony on this scale. Aside from being theft of service, it's also a denial of service attack. If you didn't notice, the government just went after a bunch of Anonymous members for a denial of service attack.

So any argument that this is somehow ok without a warrant and some sort of judicial process is just wrong.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075280)

Seriously? There is no "duplication" here. The whole point about copyright infringement not being theft is that the "owner" is not being deprived of anything. It's not as if the government made a "duplicate" of the website, they replaced the content of the website with theirs. The owner of the site is being deprived of his website.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075372)

Careful, their logic buffers will overheat and explode!

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (2)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075398)

"Seized" is ICE's term, not GP. What GP explained is that their business site was replaced with a big nasty sign about them being criminals.

If it's "pursuant to a warrant", ICE may as well post the warrant too.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (3, Informative)

theskipper (461997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075424)

It wasn't always this way but legally, they are property. See the Zuccarini case (a soap opera in itself):

http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=90 [espinosaiplaw.com]

Domains are becoming very valuable assets so how they're treated legally is important.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (1, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075814)

Either both piracy and seizing domains without due process are wrong, or neither is wrong. We can debate which is better. But the current arrangement is that imaginary property belonging to the powerful is protected by institutions, and imaginary property belonging to the regular folk is not. And that ain't my definition of rule of law.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (2)

skywire (469351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075884)

Too bad I don't have mod points at the moment. What an obvious troll. But since the modders seem to have missed the obvious, you have managed to pull off close to the perfect game in trolling: simultaneously making a fallacious argument that you know sounds so lacking in understanding of the concepts involved that the typical slashdotter will roll his or her eyes over it, and pushing the copyright button, yet still being modded up. Congrats are in order for your exercise of trolling skill.

However, for the benefit of modders, I'll pretend that I am also blind to the obvious, and answer the putative argument: The Feds are not copying bits. They are taking ownership of (stealing) domain names from the parties who own them, without due process.

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (5, Insightful)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075178)

I hate to be blunt, but the authorities have long since seized the right to abscond with *actual* property - cars, homes, et al based on the mere accusation of a drug related crime. Unfortunately everyone save the Libertarians (and some Liberals, including the ACLU.) went "Well, that's drug stuff - I'm sure they did *something* to deserve it".

From Findlaw [findlaw.com]

"As detailed in a Frontline report from 2000 [pbs.org] , federal and local practices regarding property seizure in drug cases shifted in 1984, when federal law created forfeiture funds for property seized by the DEA and FBI, and allowed local law enforcement to share proceeds from the sale of property seized."

You've waited about 25 years too long to suddenly realise "Oh . . . this could apply to *me*?!?" (Good old Saint Reagan - Who'da thunk it? I mean - not counting people actually familiar with his record.). If people don't like this, they're going to have to go back to stopping the actual real property seizures and start pushing back from there.

Pug

Re:What Egypt and the US have in common... (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075816)

They have the authority to interdict material illegally brought into the US.

No, there is due process. (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075862)

> What Egypt and the US have in common is a complete lack of due process and the right of appeal in regards to Internet censorship. This is appalling. The entire Western legal code is built on the idea that if you cannot be penalized for something without the right to defend yourself in court. I realize that the seizures are of property and not people, but it's not hard to argue, hey, maybe seizing someone's business and wrongly broadcasting that the owner is a criminal* might negatively impact the owner.

Wrong. The US has both due process and a right to appeal. Comparing the situation in the US to that in Egypt is overgeneralizing in a way which is both incorrect and insultingly trivializing the troubles in those parts of the world that do not have US rights.

In the US, in terms of due process, the warrants are seized based on a warrant, as they say on the "well-known" graphic. That means someone in a judicial capacity has approved the seizure.

If that power was misused and the warrant is bad, you have a very strong case for a lawsuit against the government for violating your constitutional rights. (Google "section 1983 lawsuits")

In terms of a right to appeal, you are perfectly entitled to defend yourself in court. You are entitled to appeal if the court gets it wrong--or even if they get it right.

And you are entitled to petition Congress. And the Supreme Court. And the President.

Google is able to stop DNS hijacking? (-1, Troll)

slasher152 (1988008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074900)

It was interesting to see how it returns IP of this site if you enter its name (Rojadirecta) screenshot: here [tinyurl.com]

Re:Google is able to stop DNS hijacking? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074926)

Well, in this case Google is bypassing DNS, as people link to the IP address of the site. This is a good thing, it prevents censorship and lets the Internet majority re-establish the site in Google.

Re:Google is able to stop DNS hijacking? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074948)

I'm guessing that's a trap door link, right? linking to goatse soon? wget http://ow.ly/3Ou1l [ow.ly] --02:34:18-- http://ow.ly/3Ou1l [ow.ly] => `3Ou1l' Resolving ow.ly... 75.101.155.42, 184.72.246.159 Connecting to ow.ly|75.101.155.42|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://bit.ly/gsokC2 [bit.ly] [following] --02:34:18-- http://bit.ly/gsokC2 [bit.ly] => `gsokC2' Resolving bit.ly... 168.143.172.53 Connecting to bit.ly|168.143.172.53|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Location: http://webwiki.dyndns-wiki.com/ [dyndns-wiki.com] [following] --02:34:19-- http://webwiki.dyndns-wiki.com/ [dyndns-wiki.com] => `index.html' Resolving webwiki.dyndns-wiki.com... 204.13.248.125 Connecting to webwiki.dyndns-wiki.com|204.13.248.125|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://img43.imageshack.us/i/screenshot1rx.png/ [imageshack.us] [following]

Re:Google is able to stop DNS hijacking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075396)

<bugs_bunny_voice>You are right!!! Mhaaaa </bugs_bunny_voice>

Seriously asshole (1)

djdevon3 (947872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075938)

Seriously? You really had to post that link. What a dick. GTFO.

DNS replacement (5, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074910)

Again, it's past time for a DNS replacement.

Not an alternate DNS root, an actual replacement that maps some kind of human readable names to an IP address.

ICANN and Network Solutions have proven that they are happy to hand over domains without a full trial, it's time to replace them.

Re:DNS replacement (2)

mentil (1748130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075068)

You mean like a server setting its IPv6 IP to some kind of hash of its domain name?

Re:DNS replacement (2)

complete loony (663508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075774)

Um, no. IP6 doesn't quite work that way.

But we could implement some kind of distributed hash table.

Re:DNS replacement (1)

machxor (1226486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075422)

Isn't the point of a temporary restraining order/seizure warrant to stop an action/take something before a full trial has occurred? Under whose laws should a full trial be held? Am I naive in believing that ICANN delegates control of the TLDs?

Re:DNS replacement (4, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075784)

Isn't the point of a temporary restraining order/seizure warrant to stop an action/take something before a full trial has occurred? Under whose laws should a full trial be held? Am I naive in believing that ICANN delegates control of the TLDs?

The problem with the current system it's an instant death penalty when it comes to seizing a domain. It's tough to recover from that, and we should be operating under innocent until proven guilty.

As for whose laws, I've always been a fan of where the server is located, or in the case of cloud computing, where the owner is located.

ICANN delegates to NetSol (and others) for .com and others. ICANN doesn't really register domains directly.

Re:DNS replacement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076012)

Again, it's past time for a DNS replacement.

Yeah, we should just use IP addresses directly. (I'm serious! What's wrong with looking up IP addresses with a search engine?)

Maybe there is a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074918)

Lets pull an Egypt and disconnect the US from the internet. Honestly the world will be a better place and we'd have a whole pile of extra IPv4 addresses.

Could we disconnect the US from earth? How much better would life be without the mentality they present... Less lawsuits, less bs on tv...

Re:Maybe there is a solution (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074976)

Yeah, let's put Australia in charge!

The thing about the US is that we suck when it comes to free speech. We're still better than nearly every other country on Earth when it comes to free speech, but we suck.

Re:Maybe there is a solution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075244)

The USA is the last of the Western World when it comes to Free Speech and Human Rights. Granted, the Western World represents less than 25% of the 200 countries on the planet, so even being last of the Western World may not seem all that bad.
But then again, the USA now qualifies as a tyranny thanks to the government repeatedly violating the Constitution and Human Rights of it's citizens: (It is rarely referred to as a tyranny publicly in politics and in the media, but it fits the definition of the word). As for the International scene, the behavior of the US government will make the entire country be considered as a rogue state by even Europe. Europe just needs a bit of time to realize how bad the USA has become and get over the shock, but soon it will.

Re:Maybe there is a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075408)

You can still call the USA a tyranny and not get arrested, that's a good sign.

Re:Maybe there is a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075852)

... As an anonymous coward on a site the government hasn't gotten round to blocking yet. The appalling "free speech zones" away from actual events tells you that the USA is already lost. The best thing you guys could do would be defederate. Some of your states would probably be okay as independent countries.

One thing's certain, the USA cannot be trusted any more than China could be to run the world's DNS.

Fairs fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074928)

Does this mean countries with strict pornography or gambling laws can start seizing US sites?

Re:Fairs fair... (1)

jnpcl (1929302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075152)

Just the sites using that country's TLD.

Thank you Streisand Effect (4, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074938)

Had never heard of Rojadirect.

Now I have another bookmarked site.

ATDHE.net (4, Informative)

doroshjt (1044472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35074958)

Re:ATDHE.net (2)

Gofyerself (1709970) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075268)

I loved the article, especially: "A spokesperson from ICE confirmed that it was a legitimate seizure and that there is an ongoing investigation into the matter." Shoot first, ask questions later!

Re:ATDHE.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075540)

Its already back up. Nice try ICE. (and seriously? ICE? you guys are trying way too hard)

Way to go Justice Dept. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074988)

Countdown until the EU starts bitching about USA control of ICANN servers again? Starting... now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance#Globalization_and_governance_controversy

Fucking morons. The diplomatic consequences of this will be far reaching and even if we get to keep our queen despite taking these pawns, the diplomatic backlash over the soon to ensue ICANN debate is going to cost the USA billions of dollars over the next decade. How? In lost profit from trade agreements as a consequence of losing our bargaining position.

Let the record show that no one can claim the reprecussions of this were unforseeable. It took me 10 seconds from reading the summary to understand the big picture consequences.

Hopefully this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and causes a public uproar which will put an end to this pro-Corpyright anti-fair use insanity.

Re:Way to go Justice Dept. (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075040)

So what? Honestly, I am here in the US and, do have plenty of reason to enjoy the status quo, but this even pisses me off, and makes me think that it needs to be fixed. I think the best ideas that I have heard have been ideas like bitdns (which is nowhere near even being proof of concept implemented) which gets rid of the entire concept of governance and goes completely to decentralized P2P.

I tend to lean more towards those sorts of solutions. Why create another single point of failure?

Re:Way to go Justice Dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075118)

Fortunately this is what is going to happen. As the USA and the UN fight over the antique, and IPv4 has officially run out of space, it makes sense we'll be moving away from VHS to DVD in the near future, and it's not necessarily going to be called IPv6 when the need for encryption has made itself so glaringly obvious over the past 20 years.

Re:Way to go Justice Dept. (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075236)

encryption? I don't see how that helps.

Look at bitcoin. No crypto. As I said in a couple of other posts, a DNS system based on a proof of work chain would... be much easier to do without ANY central authority. It means giving up the ability to EVER revoke a domain. However, that is kind of the point. To reduce the any manner of physical coercion (legal or otherwise) as a useful tool.

Some crypto would be used in implementing such a scheme, but, the problem goes far beyond anything that crypto alone can solve.

Think about this... proof of work proofs can be made so hard as to require many systems working in parallel to solve. This is how bitcoin works now. There is a simple agreement that people adding to the block chain (the chain is basically a transaction log) gets some defined number of "coins" (its a function of the block number being added). This is how new money is "minted"... really... just a log entry added to the chain that comes from its position in the chain, rather than some existing "account".

So... all this scheme really needs is to tweak generation so it never decreases the number of coins (and in fact, may increase) and then agree on a time limit. So you transfer "coins" into an "account". Add a new block type that allows you to associate a name that is not currently already taken with an account, and say that all accounts lose coins at a defined rate, and names become available when their current account hits a zero balance.

Sure, there are going to be other details, but its not a bad idea, nor completely off the cuff, this is just my description of a protocol based on some bitcoin forum discussions. I think I like the idea alot, though, I wouldn't say that this variation is particularly fleshed out or perfect.

Might not be hard (and would probably be preferable) to front end it with plain old DNS protocol. Though, there would be something to be said for having everyone hold a copy of the block chain.

cost over the next decade ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075142)

hahahaha . im in the web hosting industry and i can tell you that the internet has started moving away from .com .net .org registrations already.

is youtube covered by this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35074994)

I hope that the apply the same rules to youtube and bring that down to.

Re:is youtube covered by this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075174)

Yeah, read a page or two of youtube comments and ask yourself, do you really want those people turned loose over the whole internet?

Is it the same for all of them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075020)

This one.
Caronet:74.81.170.110

WTF Really? (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075022)

It really is pretty bogus that the US has such control over non-.us domains.

This is a pretty good reason to argue for the removal of ALL US hosted servers from root zone files.

There was some interesting discussion in the bitcoin forums about setting up a system similar to bitcoin for DNS, which would assign domains based on proof of work problem solutions. Essentially, generating a block of new unbound domains every time someone processed a block of work, the same way bitcoins are now generated, and allowing the generator to then assign them names and transfer ownership to others.

Would be interesting since it essentially becomes a system of ownership based on consensus amongst working nodes, and there is no way to effect the network by fiat. It has drawbacks, no way to revoke any domain... for any reason. Probably not really workable like that... but given that its just a system of consensus rules built around a proof of work block chain, other agreements on the rules are possible...

Some thoughts anyway,

Re:WTF Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075180)

Except... .org is a US controlled domain space. You may ask yourself why for a lot of reasons.

Re:WTF Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075900)

.com, .net, .info, .org are US based domains. If you don't like it, you can register under a country level domain.

Insanity (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075060)

All I can think to myself is... "These people are fucked. They're fucked and they are fucking us." I just long for the day that we can actually stand up for ourselves, but unfortunately anyone that would speak is drowned out by the uncaring uninformed idiocracy that is spoon fed to the comfortable masses. Sigh, I will not let the dream die though. "Dreamers man.... but I'm not the only one." Bonus points if you can name who I'm quoting.

Re:Insanity (1)

RavenLrD20k (311488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075718)

John Lennon. Imagine.

.com "not controlled by the US"- anyone know more? (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075168)

Can the US shut down .org domains, but not .com domains? That's what the article summary seems to say.

If this is the case, is the entity that "controls" .com domains better?

I was about to buy a .org domain but now I have to research this first.

Re:.com "not controlled by the US"- anyone know mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075466)

Why do so many stupid people post on /.?

Did you even try going to http://rojadirecta.com/ ???
What did you see? That's right.

Re:.com "not controlled by the US"- anyone know mo (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075532)

> Why do so many stupid people post on /.?

Because it inspires responses of high technical prowess, such as yours.

You're my hero.

Domains are so 90's (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075286)

Just have Google return IP addresses instead of domain names and I bet you'd eliminate 90% of the DNS traffic in the world today. Perhaps we should just move past it...

Re:Domains are so 90's (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075676)

Virtual hosts.

Or we could just have everybody use Google's DNS servers, then Google decides who has control of a domain.

Re:Domains are so 90's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076076)

vhosts were always half-assed anyway. Basically, the client tells the server what host it actually wants with a Host: header. You can have lots of fun supplying odd host: headers to badly written web apps. With IPv6's address space, why bother supporting the host: headeR? Just have another IPv6 address if you want another virtual host.

Re:Domains are so 90's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076030)

That is so 90s!
Hell yes switch back to raw IP.
All you have to remember is 4 tiny numbers.
Talk about a small url!

http://216.34.181.45/
Sweet!

p.s. there will be a quiz,
and the revolution will be streamed!

Re:Domains are so 90's (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076052)

that would still be dns, but google would be doing it, and it would increase as google would have to do it for every domain it brings up and not just the ones ppl click on

Insane (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075306)

How can an international system like the Internet allow one country to enforce its IP laws on a company in another country? No matter where a DNS registrar is located these domains are meant to be international resources and should be beyond any one country's grasp. It would be one thing if it were an in country company, even then there should be a right of due process, but this is insane. If I were the country with this company, I would file an international grievance. Beyond that, I highly agree we need an alternative to the current DNS system.

4th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075318)

So, how's that 4th amendment doing these days? Something like "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What constitution was that in again?

Re:4th Amendment (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076062)

canada? iran?

America, corporate whore. (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075358)

dont excuse the language - i cant find any stronger words to stress the travesty thats going on here :

america is whoring itself out to a particular industry, while killing another. the internet which was associated so closely with '.com' extension, will not be associated with it anymore. in web hosting industry, customers are already moving away from .com .net .org domains. can you imagine what the impact of this will be ? they will also be moving away from american outlets for hosting, dedicated servers, vpses and cloud, because the place which will register their NON american controlled extension, will naturally be offering deals to them during their domain purchase.

way to kill an entire industry that de facto built internet, in order to whore yourself out to a fading out one, america.

troll ? no. appalled to oblivion maybe. i cant any stronger words to stress the travesty of the situation, really. other than 'whoring' or 'morondom'. really.

Re:America, corporate whore. (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075928)

I don't think the majority of people care that a few sites that deal with questionable material have to go and try and hide in some obscure domain. Perhaps they should just start the .illegal root domain so you can save your crying for more important matters.

They didn't get the .com eh? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075438)

http://www.rojadirecta.com/ [rojadirecta.com] . Tell me what you see.

(For the lazy, it's quite similar to the image from TFS.)

My favorite websites (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075632)

Most of my favorite websites that are frowned upon by certain government agencies have already begun their transition to other domains such as .me just like Rogadirecta. I hope the others quickly start doing the same.

Just wondering... (1)

acalltoreason (1732266) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075794)

Is this even legal?

SOP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075842)

Unfortunately this is becoming the next wave of Internet and the law in America. In the works are laws that will give our government the power to "cut off the Internet", limit what you can say on it, what you can see on it. It already has the "right" to monitor every cell phone conversation from every citizen with out a warrant or reason. Obama is speaking out of the other side of his mouth when chastising the Egyptian government for doing what he and his congress is trying to do right now to Americans Internet and communication services.

Re:SOP (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075984)

Obama is speaking out of the other side of his mouth when chastising the Egyptian government for doing what he and his congress is trying to do right now to Americans Internet and communication services.

Don't be stupid. Obama would only shut down the Internet to protect you from bad people.

Seaze Away... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075930)

And can I have the IPv4 address?

This keeps the US safe (4, Insightful)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076020)

This keeps the US safe from the terrorists how exactly?

Change the name to 'The Department of Homeland Security and Corporate Enforcement' guys
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?