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 Challenge To US Domain Seizures Filed

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the amicus-briefs-at-dawn dept.

Government 119

An anonymous reader writes "You may recall that the US government, mainly through Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division (ICE) has been seizing domain names over the past year, based on bad evidence, even leading to the 'accidental' seizure of 84,000 sites. While it has taken some time, the first challenge has been filed to the domain seizures, by the company Puerto 80, who runs Rojadirecta, a Spanish internet forum that was seized because users linked to streaming sporting events. Rojadirecta was declared perfectly legal (twice!) in Spain, but the challenge obviously focuses on US law, and how the seizure was improper and did not meet the qualifications for a seizure, how the seizure violates the First Amendment by being improper prior restraint on protected speech, and how Rojadirecta is not guilty of criminal copyright infringement. This could represent a very important case in determining the government's legal right to simply seize domain names."

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

this is just... (1)

David89 (2022710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429226)

beautiful

Toss up (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429250)

I could see this case going either way, to be honest.

Re:Toss up (4)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429280)

Yes, justice is impartial [slashdot.org] .

Re:Toss up (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431206)

Thanks for depressing me...

Re:Toss up (-1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429392)

You are far too optimistic. If there was any chance of this actually being overturned, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?

Re:Toss up (5, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429436)

Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?

Is that a serious question?

The short answer is "Yes." The long answer is "Yes, often, and read some history."

Re:Toss up (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433492)

I think the better question would be "How long has it been since the courts ruled FOR a citizen AGAINST the corps?" my guess is it has been a pretty damned long time, probably Betamax. I mean when you have a SCOTUS judge's wife taking checks and nobody does shit? Yeah I don't think the odds are good on this one my friend. As much as I'd love to think that We, The People have a say and the courts don't favor the multinationals by a huge amount sadly Citizens United broke me of that particular fantasy.

Re:Toss up (2)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429466)

Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?

How many times has the Supreme Court ruled 'XYZ Law' as 'Unconstitutional'? Would you not consider that someone successfully challenging the government in a legal battle?

Government makes law. Citizen challenges law. Law is overturned. Seems like a WIN to me...

Re:Toss up (1)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429480)

Not to mention the numerous other ways the federal government has lost a legal proceeding.

Re:Toss up (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429542)

It often ends up being a pyrrhic victory though.

Re:Toss up (4, Insightful)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429574)

How many times has the Supreme Court ruled 'XYZ Law' as 'Unconstitutional'?

Not nearly enough.

Government: "Hey, you know that section of the constitution that allows us to break down trade barriers and protectionism between the states? Well, we'd like to interpret it in such a manner that gives us the power to tell any citizen in the country to do anything we want, as long as we make vague assurances that it might, in some way, affect some kind of commerce somewhere."
Court: "Sounds good to me!"

Re:Toss up (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432206)

Why would the Supreme Court even do this? It baffles me. Wasn't the whole purpose of lifetime appointments to make them incredibly difficult to influence?

Re:Toss up (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434256)

It is arguably due to FDR threatening to essentially destroy the Supreme Court by passing legislation that would increase the number of sitting justices allowing him to pad the court with justices compliant with his viewpoint. Enough justices that would be able to drown out the ones that opposed him.

Re:Toss up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432024)

Government makes law. Citizen challenges law. Law is overturned. Parts of the Government involved in making the said law go to jail forever. That is a WIN, that is true democracy.

Re:Toss up (1)

mijelh (1111411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433742)

Had you read the summary, you'll know that Rojadirecta already fought the [Spanish] government in a legal battle and won. Twice.

Re:Toss up (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434810)

Has anyone successfully fought the government in a legal battle and won?

Heller.

Remember that little card that the cops carry that they have to read to you verbatim? The one with 'right to remain silent' on it? That's also a result of a case against the government that the government lost.

And on and on and on....

Whats amazing is that so few cases are won by the government when they get to the Supremes. Shows the Supremes are, in general, doing their jobs right.

Re:Toss up (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429402)

Really?

It's one way. Give the domains back. The Spanish courts have declared them legal.

How is the Homeland Security Department funded so well in these trying times that they can afford to seize domains and fight legal battles for IP corporations in fucking Spain?

That's the fundamentals here folks. This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.

Let that sink in.

Then afterwards the rest of the world can get their heads out of their collective asses and take away domain name administration from the US because we clearly do not deserve the ability to do so, and have proven quite remarkably, that we don't have the ethics to do it either.

Re:Toss up (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429572)

This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.

And therefore it can't happen? Exhibit 1, history.

The US has placed half the world on their copyright watch list. And I don't mean rag tag countries like Russia or China but highly developed western countries like Canada and large parts of Europe. They want global IP law and they want to write it. Fits quite nicely with their overall agenda as world police, too. So I wouldn't be surprised if they just kept it, so that keeping a domain name means you have to stay inside both local law and US law. They have the audacity to do it.

Re:Toss up (5, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429966)

At this point they basically have earth minus the US on the copyright watch list. I'm sure the US would be on the list if it wasn't where they are from, also.

Of the 40 countries listed in the report, the IIPA recommends that 13 be placed on USTR’s “Priority Watch” List in 2011: These include Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand, all carried over from last year, with the additions of Costa Rica, the Philippines, Spain, Ukraine, and Vietnam. The other 27 countries are recommended for the 2011 “Watch” list.

An AC posted this at the time of that story, I thought it was spot on:

so after a few minutes on google it seems that they've put about half (3,225 million) of the world population (6,775 million) on their must watch list. I'm not going to look for the population of the other 27 countries but it wouldn't surprise me if it totals 6,470 million people which is the worlds population minus the USA population.

Pretty much.

Re:Toss up (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432792)

And this is because the US has such good clear and well thought out copyright laws...

Re:Toss up (1)

swb (14022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429720)

I hope they give admin rights to Iran. It'll dovetail nicely with Libya having been the head of the UN Human Rights commission.

Re:Toss up (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430148)

I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!

Re:Toss up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431050)

Because if you infringe copyright, the terrorists win, obviously. The proof. Is that. DHS is running ICE. Q.E.D.

Re:Toss up (1)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432906)

I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!

I think they'd be of more use watching out for submarine patents.

Re:Toss up (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434772)

I wonder why on Earth an agency founded in the aftermath of 9/11, to protect gainst terrorist threats to the United States is involved in thus kind of thing? May as well have the fucking coast guard policing patent infringements!

It happened because the agency in question isn't really an agency in the older sense. It's just an umbrella organization to foster communications within and among a bunch of older agencies.

Basically, we were surprised by 9/11. Therefore we added an extra layer of bureaucracy to fix the problem.

Because we all know that any problem can be solved if we have more bureaucrats in the loop.

Re:Toss up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430714)

This the US government acting unilaterally without jurisdiction and a complete disregard for the judicial processes, laws, and sovereignty of foreign nations.

News at 11.

Re:Toss up (1)

onepoint (301486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432012)

if all the domains are .com's then it's within the rights since it's controlled by an American firm, that's why a few years back they were trying to get rid of that control and have it transferred to Switzerland.

I wish I had the link reference

Re:Toss up (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435150)

By having a .com, .org, .net or .us address, they are effectively doing business in the US. When you do business in the US, you have to follow US laws. as the web site seized is rojadirecta.org, I don't see a problem here. .org is a TLD of the US. Now, as there is a rojadirecta.es, I don't see what the problem is. Now, if the seizer is overturned (which it should be, a forum where people post is not liable for what is posted...slashdot.org should be just as exempt for all those counterfeit product trolls we have) then that will of course be a good thing.

To recap, rojadirecra.org is an USA TLD, not a Spanish one, therefore they are subject to the US courts, not the Spanish ones.

Dear U.S.A. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429302)

Stop trying to fucking police the whole godamn planet on all levels.

Besides entertainment and some software development, you are now irrelevant.

Signed, everyone.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429498)

Stop trying to fucking police the whole godamn planet on all levels.

Besides entertainment and some software development, you are now irrelevant.

Signed, everyone.

The problem is that it IS entertainment that is behind the whole thing.

Next time you talk to anyone in the commercialised (*) entertainment industry - make them part of this. Just tell them you don't agree with "you guys" grabbing internet domains. And don't let them slip-and-slide-away ("oh that's not us, that's the government") because we all know the truth.

(*) this excludes indie music, film, and software developers but people that work for/as RIAA, MPAA and BSA members are explicitly targeted.

Dear World (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429628)

Our lawyers, guns, and money make anything you say or try to do irrelevant... yes, to this day

Re: Lawyers guns and money (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430178)

So what you're saying is that the shit has hit the fan?

Re:Dear World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432200)

good thing our money is quickly becoming worthless. i look forward to the day this corrupt, hypocritical oligarchy burns

Re:Dear World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432458)

Our lawyers, guns, and money make anything you say or try to do irrelevant... yes, to this day

The money's not worth much, and the guns don't work too well without oil. We are, however, afraid of your lawyers!

Re:Dear U.S.A. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429786)

Dear, everyone:

We're very sorry. Our current government doesn't represent us. They just do whatever the hell they want, without regard for anything or anyone who didn't contribute massively to their campaigns - especially not our constitution. We can't stop them without a revolution.

Signed, the U.S.A.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430370)

Then do get up off your fat arses and try a bit of that revolting you septics are always bragging about (even though it was 250 years ago); with the guns you always say the government lets you have not for defence of the realm, but so you can overthrow them, it should be much easier for you than all the oriental blokes the we keep hearing about.

Signed, the rest of the civilised world.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (3, Insightful)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430522)

Amen. What is this "The government just does what they want non-sense. Stop voting for the same two failed parties. Start demonstrating on the lawn of the assemblies. Help to form a new party and fund it, run for office ...

Or do you mean when you do nothing they keep doing what ever they want?

Re:Dear U.S.A. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430966)

The government doesn't "let" them have guns, their constitution enshrines the right for them to keep and bear arms. This makes it none of the government's business. /No I'm not a US citizen, just a fan of their constitution. If they followed it I think the USA would be a pretty awesome place.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (3, Insightful)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433152)

Dear U.S.A.,

You've been claiming this during the previous 8 years of Bush administration, too; which was supposedly from the opposing party. Frankly, we don't see the difference, but that's probably a cultural thing.

Stop making excuses and get that damn revolution started already, before we are forced to come over and, how do you guys call it, spread some democracy.

Signed, everyone.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431072)

Policing? lol Make no mistake. Policing is supposed to be about protecting laws. The US is only protecting corporate interests. Don't confuse that with policing.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432748)

Since laws are remodeled to protect corporate interests more and more, I'd say the two terms will soon become interchangeable.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431254)

Aside from the obvious RIAA and MPAA problems I've been freaking scared about the DHS ever since it was created by Bush and Chesney, not the best folks to be creating ANYTHING in the name of freedom. Dictatorship-style control, yes, but NOT freedom. This is but one example and it's a pretty sure bet that more stupid control freak scandals will be coming very, very soon.

Re:Dear U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432170)

America! Fuck Yeah!

Re:Dear U.S.A. (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435164)

Dear rest of the world,

If you want to do business on the internet under your own laws, don't buy a fucking US TLD.

Signed, the US.

Hey, I've got an idea.. (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429324)

How about those working for ICANN grow some balls, and don't cave to every whim of agencies like ICE?

Re:Hey, I've got an idea.. (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429484)

It's much easier to let someone else go to court than to be detained for "obstruction of justice" or whatever else DHS and ICE pinned on them.

Re:Hey, I've got an idea.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429530)

So if employees of ICANN can be arrested or detained by U.S. law enforcement for obstruction of justice, what is the point of being an international, autonomous organization?

An apology to the international community (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429356)

I have to apologize to the international community. When you started clamoring for international control of the domain system, my summary reaction was, "Whiners. Do you seriously not trust the United States to handle DNS in a fair manner? We do not mess with free speech without due process. Would you really trust international oversight more?"

Now I see that the US cannot in fact be trusted to fairly manage the domain system. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Re:An apology to the international community (4, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429452)

Now I see that the US cannot in fact be trusted to fairly manage the domain system. You were right. I was wrong. I'm sorry.

I'm similarly disappointed in the US... but I'm still not sure what nation or organization would be BETTER. UN? EU? Industry organizations? Those would all be even worse.

Heck, I'd rather give it to anonymous to handle.

Re:An apology to the international community (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430092)

We should give control to a computer, in a bomb shelter on the novaya zemlya islands, with a HW random number generator that it consults for decisions.

Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.

err, something like that.

Re:An apology to the international community (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432186)

We should give control to a computer, in a bomb shelter on the novaya zemlya islands, with a HW random number generator that it consults for decisions.

Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.

err, something like that.

Mein Fuhrer!

ACHTUNG, Mein "Troller" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432448)

U R A Troll gmhowell: Pure online trash, nothing more http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612 [slashdot.org] and you even admit to it, you piece of online trolling trash.

Meh I wouldnt worry abouit this fuckwad gmhowell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432600)

Its only APK, he is a well known troll here, don't bother feeding him. He is at war with nearly everyone on Slashdot, and is so stupid he does not realise he is making himself look like a tosser of epic proportions.

funny, but gmhowell admits to being a troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432672)

See here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612 [slashdot.org] ...

Sort of tough to deny his own words saying it (or rather yours, gmhowell, seeing as your wont to post as ac replies now, like that "fools anyone").

The most hilarious part is that this apk guy beat the hell out of both gmhowell and his pal tomhudson yesterday for their trolling (see links below).

Especially that cyclops 1 eyed fool out of work loser in tomhudson!

As tomhudson also admitted to trolling apk by anonymous replies just as you are now, gmhowell:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35660404 [slashdot.org]

Clearcut proof that "trolls of a feather, DO flock together"

And?

By golly, lol, who was there too right with tomhudson? you guessed it - gmhowell!

It's a pleasure burying you with your own stupdity, gmhowell, and you reacting to it via AC replies? Proof it gets to you. You only did this to yourself.

In fact, proof of that much is here as well!

tomhudson, gmhowell's pal, is a total dumb ass in computing, an entire list there shows it in fact of how many times he got his behind handed to him by apk) here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2233492&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36421774 [slashdot.org]

Funny watching both gmhowell and tomhudson shut the hell up, fast there after that.

Hilariously entertaining, as we all love to see trolls run like the cowards they are.

Yes - You may see apk at war with trolls, but he doesn't lose to them and they cannot stand it.

Fact is, He makes them shut the hell up usually, as evidenced above.

I have also seen lists of him being modded up here, even as an ac poster, by the hundreds. So much for his being at war with everyone.

adhominem attacks & no facts? U R A troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432726)

Is that the best you've got there troll? U FAIL, badly. Illogical trolls like you with no backup in facts always do. No wonder you trolling dorks get mincemeat made out of you everytime. It's hilarious.

Re:Meh I wouldnt worry abouit this fuckwad gmhowel (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432910)

Its only APK, he is a well known troll here, don't bother feeding him. He is at war with nearly everyone on Slashdot, and is so stupid he does not realise he is making himself look like a tosser of epic proportions.

But his OCD is much more entertaining to me than Marc Summers'.

Re:An apology to the international community (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430280)

If the US loses control the only organization to handle it would be ITU under the UN. If you think it's bad under the US wait until the worlds dictators have a say under ITU. Domains that are offensive to the world dictators will be revoked, domains that offends Muslims will be revoked. You name it, the system will be destroyed. The solution is a legal block against the US doing what they are doing not to hand the system over to a bunch of nations that don't believe in free speech.

Re:An apology to the international community (2)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431062)

No. Technical solutions are always superior to legal solutions. The solution is weighted web-of-trust DNS, with a great deal of caching.

Re:An apology to the international community (2)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431872)

>> hand the system over to a bunch of nations that don't believe in free speech.

As a Brit now living in the US, I was surprised by the large difference between the EU and the US in what is considered "allowable speech". People are MUCH more restricted in the US than in the EU both by police and worse, societal norms as a whole. Also I was surprised by how US police act like thugs and bullies even as a first response. EU cops wouldn't ever do that.
For example look what happened at your Lincoln Memorial (more than once apparently):
http://www.openculture.com/2011/05/dont_dance_at_the_lincoln_memorial.html [openculture.com]

When you Americans say you live in the "The Land of the Free" do you REALLY believe it? If so, you need to get out and see the world and get a reality check for yourselves.

I'm not saying the EU is perfect, we have our own issues, however in this respect its better.
At least we can peacefully protest and say what we want without fear that our cops would or could kick our heads in then get away with it.

Re:An apology to the international community (1)

pacinpm (631330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433674)

At least we can peacefully protest and say what we want without fear that our cops would or could kick our heads in then get away with it.

Unless you live in UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield [wikipedia.org]

Re:An apology to the international community (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433696)

EU cops wouldn't ever do that.EU cops wouldn't ever do that.

It not common here. But it does happen. EU cops are thugs sometimes too.

Re:An apology to the international community (0)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431934)

Israel.
Seriously. Large percentages of the planet either disregard them as largely irrelevant; or want to remove them from the planet. But, they have the support of powerful but inept allies. The perfect compromise. The domain administration fees they receive could easily exceed foreign financial support.

And, the Israeli's are smarter than the US government. They would not seize domains; they'd track connections and sell the data to everyone.

Re:An apology to the international community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432176)

> Heck, I'd rather give it to anonymous to handle.

Think of all the lulz!

Re:An apology to the international community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432652)

"Those would all be even worse."

LOL. Didn't take long for the knee-jerk wingnut anti-UN nutjobs to chime in. Thanks for playing.

Re:An apology to the international community (2)

Fyzzler (1058716) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429692)

I sadly have to agree with this post. I too was wrong. DNS needs to be removed from US control.

R.I.P (2)

ForexCoder (1208982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429408)

Fourth, Fifth and Six Amendments

12/19/1791 - 1/1/2011

. Requiescat in pace

Re:R.I.P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430310)

Fourth, Fifth and Six Amendments

No, other cases have gotten rid of those. This is the closest we're likely to see (for a few more years) to the revocation of the Third: the King's troops have arrogated unto themselves the right to take up residence not only in DNS root servers located on American soil, but everywhere else.

I blame President Bush! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429420)

Man, if Bush wasn't still our President [fill in the rest].

Re:I blame President Bush! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432762)

What makes you think the sock puppet matters to the actor?

This is why (5, Interesting)

vga_init (589198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429422)

This is why we don't to have the US in control of the DNS master servers on the Internet. It's high time that we architect a new, global, and decentralized domain name service network that thwarts tampering by any government or institution.

Re:This is why (2)

trampel (464001) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429714)

I buy the "decentralized" part, but regarding the non-US part: rojadirecta.com has been registered with godaddy.com (a US company for all that I know) since 2005. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that they could have used a non-US registrar, and further assume that that would have made it more difficult to seize the domain.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429842)

And pray tell, how do you get an international domain name such as .com without going through a US registrar? Monopolies are bad.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430150)

Maybe a spanish company would care to go through Spain's TLD rather than through a US registrar.

If they did, it would eliminate this problem. The only way for ICANN/US DoC to disrupt service would be to delist authoritative servers for the entire .es TLD. .com isn't an international domain name. It's a US domain. Look at a postage stamp from Japan. It has Nippon on it. Look at one from France. It'll have Francais on it. From the US? USA on it. Look at one from the UK.. See a country designator on it? Nope. Why? Cause they made the system. Pointless to put UK or GBR or Commonwealth or whatever it would've been at the time the system was devised because .. they were the only intended users. It was handy and it spread to other countries, at which point it was useful to have country designations. so there were. for everybody else.

Not that there is such a thing as an "international domain name" .. You can reach servers in domains other than the one native to the originating country, but the lack of a country code for a TLD doesn't make a domain international anymore than Trans World Airlines was an international air carrier. It was an American airline (bought up by American Airlines, no less) that flew international routes. But the lack of US in its title doesn't alter the fact that it was a US carrier. .com registrars don't care if your hardware is in Brasil and your audience is in Tuvalu. If you want a domain, you can get it. But its still a US domain.

Re:This is why (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434618)

Use a non-us registrar to register the .com .com isn't a United States domain.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36429858)

They could but the problem would persist because the DNS root servers are in US .

Re:This is why (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429912)

.com "belongs" to Verisign. [icann.org] I suspect it doesn't matter what sub-registrar you buy your domain from; if it's .com, it's easily in the reach of US law enforcement action, by virtue of ultimately being controlled by a U.S. company whose headquarters is practically within walking distance of the headquarters of the DoJ and ICE.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430018)

ding ding ding ding ding!

this is why you use your .com to redirect somewhere else.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430750)

So that's what it really comes down to: Does the US have jurisdiction of the original gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, edu)? What about the newer gTLDs (.info, .biz, .mobi, etc.)? Do you basically have to go with a ccTLD and a registrar within that country (as using a US-based registrar would put you back under US jurisdiction) to beyond the grasp of the US jurisdiction?

Re:This is why (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430160)

It's time we started accepting non-ICANN approved TLD's. ICANN is the main problem since it is based in the US. Verisign and 'corporate control' of any TLD is unacceptable.

Re:This is why (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432962)

Not necessarily decentralized. But thinking that one domain name system would be enough for everyone was clearly a pipe dream. Just one problem from the top of my head is what to do with generic words like "apple", "ford", and "good", or common proper names. What is a fair way to assign "john.net"? FIFO? Surely, you are joking. We were doing great with one authoritative DNS, and we will do even better with several. We actually already have them, but we are slow to realize their name-resolving nature. Wikipedia, Google, Torrentz, or even browser plugins which uncensor domains: they all take short phrases and turn them into links to other pages. DNS was implemented (socially) as a wild wild west land grab (this analogy became complete after rich corporations started hijacking names through courts), and it pretty much reached its full potential by now. Other, more structured name resolvers are coming into spotlight now. A decentralized name system with FIFO registration would be completely useless: it would always remain DNS's uglier sister.

I hope they win (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429448)

I hope Rojadirecta wins this big, and everyone else then files suit and nails the government.

Re:I hope they win (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429900)

Only if "the government" refers to the actual assholes pulling this shit, instead of the rest of us tax-payers. I didn't vote for those idiots at ICE: why should I have to pay for their screw-ups?

Re:I hope they win (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430466)

That's who I was referring to, since they are the government agency in the article.

Re:I hope they win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430518)

I'll be happy if ICE is told what they are doing is unconstitutional.

I doubt it will happen.

bye (1)

nonicknameavailable (1495435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429676)

.com .net .org is going to die slowly because of US domain seizures

Fund? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429992)

Any (reputable) place to contribute to this legal fight?

First Challenge To US Domain Seizures Failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430078)

I read that wrong at first. ::Whew::

The government really has no choice. (1)

scotts13 (1371443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430294)

In case you haven't noticed, the United States has essentially ceased the manufacture of tangible goods (unless you count foodstuffs). All we really have left to base our wealth upon is intellectual property. Problem is, you point to a hammer and see value: iron, wood, and the energy to mold them. With IP, especially media, the only value is that which the customers choose to give it. We MUST force our laws and perceptions regarding IP on the world. We have no choice.

Re:The government really has no choice. (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430454)

I feel that the U.S. (my home) having this much control is unacceptable.

In regards to your comment, you are completely wrong. The US still manufactures many things. Trains, Planes, Automobiles, Farming machinery, Space explortation vehicles/bots, etc. Sure we dont make tires or coffe pots, but we have moved on beyond those things. It makes more sense to have developing nations produce those for us.

In the future, those nations will build the planes, trains, etc. And we will be building X.

And yes, we are a leading supplier of food stuffs as well.

Re:The government really has no choice. (2)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431410)

Actually the US is the worlds largest manufacturer and exporter of weapons but let's save that for another post.

It seems to me that when a government itself corrupts own legal system, especially just to further protect already rich mega corporations, you have already lost your country.

Re:The government really has no choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431680)

It seems to me that when a government itself corrupts own legal system, especially just to further protect already rich mega corporations, you have already lost your country.

What do you call it when it starts corrupting other countries too?

Until the general strikes begin (1)

leftie (667677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433794)

They are not that far off at this rate.

Discount Brainetics (0)

brainetics (2263974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432306)

Free Shipping Brainetics Secrets 40% OFF For Sale www.mathfeats.com 100% original! Free Shipping! 40$ OFF! Best Servces! Paypal! www.mathfeats.com brainetics,brainetics secrets,brainetics discount,brainetics wholesale brainetics playbook,brainetics workbook,brainetics wiki

how about rojadirecta.es ? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432830)

Rojadirecta is by no means limited in it's ability to free speech. They could easily put another domain name on their servers and be up and about in no time. Yes, it's rather nasty that they had their USA domain confiscated, but since they aren't a USA site, it shouldn't matter that much. It'd be different if they were filtered off the Internet, but some rogue non democratic country seizing a domain name shouldn't stop free speech now, should it?

Excellent news (1)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433418)

It's about time someone fought back against these no-trial, no-evidence seizures.

Critical (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433424)

If not the courts strike down the very concept of seizing/stealing domain names the future of the internet is very dark indeed,

None of the laws used to justify this seizure have any moral merit. Why should a company in Spain be subject to some US customs or IP law?

The US waste enormous amounts of money on enforcing the unenforcible, like stupid gaming laws (native Americans can build and run casinos, other Americans cannot, people in the US can gamble in non-American casinos, not in casinos run by or for Americans etc.) or IP laws completely out of date made to protect a business model long obsolete.

Why don't they simply tax the casinos and make part of the taxes go to fighting gambling addiction? - And find a business model for IP that doesn't involve massive efforts in fighting the customers in various courts.

Re:Critical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435610)

like stupid gaming laws (native Americans can build and run casinos, other Americans cannot, people in the US can gamble in non-American casinos, not in casinos run by or for Americans etc.)

Dude who the fuck do you think the First Americans are?

Why don't they simply tax the casinos and make part of the taxes go to fighting gambling addiction?

Why don't you just go back to where your family came from. You know our Casinos are kind of like those glass beads you gave us sometime ago. So come on in and spend your money.

BTW
America is a geographical location, a pair of continents, not a country. You live in the country called "The United States." that resides on the continent of North America. Someone from Canada is also an "American".

Are you any kin to Sarah Palin?
Stupid White people.

You have to remember the first settlers here where the Thugs and Thieves of Europe that Europe didn't want and kick out, and people wonder where "American" mentality comes from. If you won't give it up we'll just kick your ass and take it.

Just dump your US domains. (1)

leftie (667677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36433786)

All those domains that do not end in .com work just peachy.

Re:Just dump your US domains. (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434646)

.com isn't a US domain.

This is stupid and insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434496)

If I did this it would be called theft.. When the government does it, it's called ummm....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?