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!

Ask Slashdot: Best ccTLD To Avoid Confiscation?

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the go-sealand dept.

Censorship 241

First time accepted submitter Pete McCann writes "Given the recent spate of domain seizures by the U.S. government, it seems that registrations in any U.S.-hosted registry (like the gTLDs .com, .net, and .org) aren't stable places to put content that the U.S. government might find objectionable. I am wondering, are there any ccTLD registries out there that have an open registration policy and are willing to stand up to censorship demands from the USG? There is this list of ccTLDs with open registration policies, and the current MAFIAAFIRE redirection list looks very Tuvalu-heavy. Where would you register a site for maximum resistance to confiscation?"

cancel ×

241 comments

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

Best domain not to get stolen: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480730)

.onion

Re:Best domain not to get stolen: (1)

North Korea (2457866) | about 3 years ago | (#37481240)

I really wouldn't couldn't on TOR, especially considering that it's mostly US project intended to act against Iran. In paper it's a nice project - no, it's a great project.. but, the main reason for the existence of TOR is that it helps US to spy on Iran. And this isn't some tinfoil hat stuff either, it has been written on paper several times.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen: (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481484)

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

niggerland (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480750)

.nggr

Re:niggerland (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481276)

I like it. Why do posts that say NIGGER always get modded -1 on this site?

Re:niggerland (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 3 years ago | (#37481356)

You wouldn't understand. It's a nigger thing.

It can't just be me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480756)

Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

Re:It can't just be me (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#37480800)

To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.

Contributory or vicarious infringement (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37480866)

To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy.

Is this also true of contributorily infringing copyright or vicariously infringing copyright?

Re:Contributory or vicarious infringement (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about 3 years ago | (#37480964)

What about sites where users/visitors can put content? What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere or your domain confiscated?

OCILLA (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37481296)

What about sites where users/visitors can put content?

Sites to which subscribers contribute material are covered by the OCILLA safe harbor, codified as 17 USC 512 [copyright.gov] .

What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere

In that case, I'd be not liable under U.S. copyright law unless I had first received and ignored a takedown request. But the limitation on liability appears to apply only to material contributed by a subscriber, not material contributed by the operator of the site.

Re:OCILLA (1)

trum4n (982031) | about 3 years ago | (#37482088)

Cause the safe harbor thing works for torrent sites....right? NOPE. Government does as they please.

Re:It can't just be me (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37480928)

False. You can be liable for copyright infringement even if you don't do the copying yourself. This it's decades old precedent in the US.

Re:It can't just be me (5, Insightful)

gerumato (2435578) | about 3 years ago | (#37480834)

Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.

Re:It can't just be me (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480850)

Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.

Spoken like a true douchebag. Fuck everyone, gimme free shit.

Re:It can't just be me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481050)

Yes, he's a true douchebag for wanting his day in court and a chance to defend himself BEFORE the gov seizes his domain. What an ass. Next he'll be asking for something silly like being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Re:It can't just be me (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#37481132)

The burden of proving that their website didn't have copyrighted content on it is on the person whose domain was confiscated. Having to go to court for things such as this would just burden the government. What a bother! You don't want to burden the government, do you?

Re:It can't just be me (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 3 years ago | (#37481788)

I think I don't want to burden the government with the hassle of processing my tax dollars.

Re:It can't just be me (2)

Tsingi (870990) | about 3 years ago | (#37481054)

Spoken like a true douchebag. Fuck everyone, gimme free shit.

That's freedom. As in

All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

not pretty damn close. It's a shame that the douchebags make up the majority, i.e. the public, i.e. the people that the government is supposed to represent. (As opposed to the people that OWN the government, you know, the corporate persons who hold all the marbles?) Who the fuck are you?

Re:It can't just be me (0)

gumbi west (610122) | about 3 years ago | (#37481888)

Liberties must always be balanced when my enjoyment decreases your enjoyment.

Example, you want to do target practice on your neighbors wall (it's a free country!) and your neighbor doesn't want to die or have walls riddled with holes. The government helps sort out who has the right to exclude whom.

In this case, your neighbor needn't even tell you and you can't use their wall for target practice. Similarly, copyright material cannot be shared in certain ways without permission from the owner. The copyright owner can restrict your for any reason they want: i.e. they may be fine with you sharing 256k/sec mp3s but don't wan their expression to sound like shit in a 96k/sec encoding.

How do I avoid copying? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37480890)

Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

Say I write and record a song and put it up for mp3/ogg download on my web site. How can I be sure that I wasn't subconsciously copying a song that had been written a decade ago?

Re:How do I avoid copying? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37480948)

And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.

Re:How do I avoid copying? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481134)

Citation Needed.

Re:How do I avoid copying? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 3 years ago | (#37481234)

Rather than saying citation needed on something like this, why not show *ONE* case of the opposite?

Re:How do I avoid copying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481610)

While not a domain confiscation, there have been instances of mistaken DMCA takedown notices [eff.org] from the *AA companies. It's not really being paranoid to worry that mistakes like that would result in mistaken domain seizures now that copyright holders have that recourse.

Re:How do I avoid copying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481258)

Proving a negative is usually pretty difficult. If none have been seized, there wouldn't be a story about it. If you happen to have one, please feel free to post it though.

Mij

Re:How do I avoid copying? (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37481344)

It's posting a "citation needed" as ac the best comeback you got tepples?

Re:How do I avoid copying? (1)

PIBM (588930) | about 3 years ago | (#37481710)

You should look around, even in this slashdot threads, there are a lot of cases where it's not clear cut, and you can find one sample here, as in geekprime post (10 minutes before your post, we can accept that you had not been aware of those cases if you never stumbled on them)

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.

Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80 [techdirt.com] [techdirt.com]

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml [techdirt.com] [techdirt.com]

Re:How do I avoid copying? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37481320)

Start with Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.

Re:How do I avoid copying? (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 3 years ago | (#37482196)

Yeah but let's say the internet had been around while Ray Parker Jr. [wikipedia.org] was still writing and recording songs...

Re:It can't just be me (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#37480910)

You can trust that the government won't confiscate any other domains because, well, they're the government! Who doesn't trust them?

Re:It can't just be me (5, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | about 3 years ago | (#37480968)

Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?

Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.

You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. (LOL!)

But only slightly less well known is this, never assume that the US government acts in accordance with the public good. You don't have to infringe copyright to have your website confiscated any more than you have to commit an act of terrorism to be branded a terrorist. Or vice versa.

I suspect that you are correct in suggesting that normal websites with normal website crap aren't going to attract any attention from the government, or anyone else for that matter, but attack Big Business or suggest that some semblance of real Democracy should be a concern, and you will attract their attention.

Re:It can't just be me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481108)

Are you claiming that any of these confiscated domains was shut down just for "attacking Big Business or suggesting that some semblance of real Democracy should be a concern"? Citation needed!

USA != PRC

Re:It can't just be me (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 years ago | (#37482440)

USA != PRC

Don't tell us, tell them!

Not sure. (1)

mfh (56) | about 3 years ago | (#37480996)

Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated.

I'm not sure I agree. Look at the recent USA tax-grab on former USA citizens living in Canada, even if the Canadians have not lived in USA for thirty or more years. The USA is becoming more and more draconian every year. Who is to say they wouldn't simply annex a domain that was making a lot of money and re-purpose it if they can do so using whatever draconian false-hope reason they can come up with?

Re:It can't just be me (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 3 years ago | (#37481198)

First of all, no. Second, in practice it really only takes an accusation of infringement, not actual proof.

Re:It can't just be me (5, Interesting)

geekprime (969454) | about 3 years ago | (#37481218)

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.

Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80 [techdirt.com]

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml [techdirt.com]

-------------------
Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures

While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.

Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:

        The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.

        On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.

As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.

The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances around the issue and flat out points out that the government's argument is incoherent, pulling different actions from different actors together to try to pretend that a single party did something wrong.

        But in attempting to argue its new “facilitation” theory, the government cites to different acts by different actors (Puerto 80, other websites that are streaming content, and unidentified users who follow links to the content) for different elements of the alleged offense. Not only does this approach render the government’s opposition brief incoherent; it does nothing to change the fact that the Complaint fails to plead the elements of criminal copyright infringement by Puerto 80 or any other actor.

Specifically, Puerto 80 points out that in order to show criminal copyright infringement, the government needs to show that a party willfully infringed for profit. But it doesn't do so. It shows that some people may have infringed. And it shows that Puerto 80 may have profited. But it does not (and cannot) show that Puerto 80 itself willfully infringed for profit. In fact, it doesn't even try, because it knows that Puerto 80 itself did not infringe directly.

Finally, Puerto 80 points out that even if the government's argument is accurate, then the law must be unconstitutional:

        Under the government’s newly-raised construction of the statute, the government may use the forfeiture statute to make an end-run around the First Amendment by seizing a lawful channel of communication. Such a seizure prevents lawful speech, and constitutes a prior restraint on that lawful speech. The government’s suggested construction of the forfeiture statute would render it unconstitutional, and should therefore be rejected.....

.onion (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 years ago | (#37480776)

The best TLD out there, and the only one that you can be sure you will not be taken down from.

Overall...the only way to really avoid it is to avoid central registrars that are beholden to their political masters.

Re:.onion (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37481038)

.onion +1

Other than that, domains in alternate TLDs registered with OpenNIC.

Re:.onion (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 years ago | (#37481540)

OH I get that, its just, I have no faith in any system that isn't well protected from it's association with a physical location in terms of being beyond the reach of major national governments, and particularly that of the Team America Police Force (fuck yeah!). If they want to get to your registrar bad enough, they will find a way. Best to trust a registrar that can't be bought and doesn't exist in only one place.

I, personally, favor abandoning traditional DNS in favor of alternatives like the .onion or, when they become operational, decentralized models like bitdns (not sure if that ever went anywhere) idea.

Without such things, the idea of a TLD that is beyond US thugs ability to take down is non-sequitor. Of course they can be taken down, it just requires the right pressure, and they have no scruples about turning the screws...especially if they can farm it out to someone else to do the actual screw turning.

Re:.onion (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37482380)

.onion is the most resilient but probably the least convenient. If it's for l33t haxx0r stuff then have at it - in fact I'd recommend hosting the site through an .onion and using a "mainstream" domain as a proxy to it (like your own personal tor2web) if you're worried about it being taken down, in any case, and it gives you a ready-made emergency failover solution.

The .cn domains actually seem to be pretty resilient, I think that was Wikileaks' only domain that was never taken offline.

First Amendment mean nothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480790)

You have the right to free speech. Let them take it down and then sue the pants off of them. Make it into a big fight for Free Speech. and tell the Government to go F*** themselves.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37480852)

It's not a free speech issue. You're still free to say what you want, it's just that people have to locate you by IP address rather than domain name. A problem which really needs to be remedied.

As for the topic, none of the ones people use in a browser are going to be safe as long as ICANN is responsible ultimately.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#37480970)

How can you speak if you have no mouth, Mr. Anderson?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | about 3 years ago | (#37481152)

You have no rights!
Once more for emphasis, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

And you can't sue the government, if you make too much noise you'll get a flight on a Paul Wellstone plane!

Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (1)

DrVxD (184537) | about 3 years ago | (#37481554)

Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.

I think it says a lot about dubya and the population that elected him ; I don't think it says much about the document itself (although Shitehouse sources claim that "it's soft, strong and very very long")

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37482036)

I think it says a lot about the general /. population that you'd accept such a claim about what someone said without checking to see whether it was TRUE or whether it was FABRICATED.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481678)

Dubya is long gone. I was told there would be change. What happened?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481894)

Nothing

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (2)

c6gunner (950153) | about 3 years ago | (#37482238)

You have no rights!

Move to Saudi Arabia. They'll give you all the rights you can buy.

Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.

When you get to Saudi Arabia, learn to fact-check.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (1)

the_saint1138 (1353335) | about 3 years ago | (#37482358)

Fact check first... The "piece of paper" quote is phony.

As far as i can tell, this is the original article (it has been retracted): http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml [capitolhillblue.com]
FactCheck.org: http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/ [factcheck.org]

Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (1)

thePuck77 (1311533) | about 3 years ago | (#37481270)

No, the First Amendment means nothing. What are you, new?

Freedom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480792)

Land of the free, home of the brave! (If you still buy that, you must really be a Believer.)

Does not matter (3, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#37480876)

My understanding is that the domain seizure by the U.S. government works by requiring DNS servers to resolve the domain name to a government IP address in cases where the domain is registered/hosted outside the U.S.. I really don't think it makes much difference what tld you use.

Re:Does not matter (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481042)

This is not quite correct. The US Govt. would require the AUTHORITATIVE name server to redirect, which is why the usual .com, .net etc are vulnerable. By switching your TLD to .tv for example, your authoritative name server is outside of US jurisdiction.

Link to a brief but informative DNS primer: http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/support/dns_history.html

Re:Does not matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37482226)

This is not quite correct. The US Govt. would require the AUTHORITATIVE name server to redirect, which is why the usual .com, .net etc are vulnerable. By switching your TLD to .tv for example, your authoritative name server is outside of US jurisdiction.

Link to a brief but informative DNS primer: http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/support/dns_history.html

Still not quThey did actually also seize a .TV domain - keep in mind that the .TV registry is operated by Verisign, a company located in the US. http://movies-links.tv/

Also the root servers are sourced from the US at the moment, so in theory (as Kevin from Unrest.ca pointed out) there could be an override line be entered for any ccTLD.

Does it matter? (1)

sohmc (595388) | about 3 years ago | (#37480884)

If the server is on US Soil, can't they just confiscate the rack or demand that the data center remove the site?

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37480986)

who says the server is on us soil? most knowledgeable people know better than to buy a server in the us. netherlands ftw.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#37481324)

I'm seriously looking: I could use some ISP's (as well) in germany or holland or maybe sweden (?) to host the content as well as be the registrar. any tips on ISP's that are going to offer reasonable pkgs for small businesses (ordering, shopping cart, some static content, some update/blog stuff, some user forum stuff; you know, the usual small company-with-a-product kind of website who enjoys that format of customer support and dialog).

but I don't want it US hosted. the US has lost its 'rating' in my view and I'd like to go outside for a bit more insulation.

TIA.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481148)

To do that, they need to do troublesome things like get a warrant. Domains aren't property (except when they are), so the US can confiscate them at will without having to provide any real reason for suspicion.

Re:Does it matter? (2)

Sloppy (14984) | about 3 years ago | (#37481314)

And what if the server isn't on US soil?

But let's say it is.

Confiscating a rack actually requires effort, manpower, expense. If a few guys have to go over to the data center, there is a reasonable chance that at least somebody might stop and check to see that what they're doing makes sense. ("Hey guys, this piece of paper says whitehouse.com; I'm not sure we should be pulling the plug on this computer that has a posit note on it, saying whitehouse.gov.") There will be witnesses at the data center. There will be more documentation. There won't be due process as we normally think of it, but at least there's a process of some sort, and our bizarre seizure laws are something that the public at least has the theoretical ability to lobby for change.

Subverting DNS requires a button click, can be done accidentally, and can be done by anyone who finds flaws in the authentication system. Some day your .com domain may go offline via the government's censorship mechanism, simply because some script kiddie wanted to show off that he could do it, not because you embarrassed the government.

Requiring physical action improves security. It filters out less-committed adversaries (and there's a countless horde of those out there on the internet) and creates more opportunities to detect errors.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

jtara (133429) | about 3 years ago | (#37482272)

Confiscating the rack doesn't make the site go away. You could just set up shop at another hosting provider. They have to confiscate the domain to make sure the site doesn't pop back up. So, the only way it can pop back up is on a different domain name or with just an IP address. Either way, it will be difficult for people to find the replacement.

well... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 3 years ago | (#37480920)


I started being partial to .cx soon after starting to read slashdot. No idea why...

Re:.cx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481430)

It's the goats, see?

.vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481642)

Vanuatu.
Inhouse pharmacy had its .com confiscated, and continues to have a presence on .vu and .biz

Invisible Internet Project (3, Interesting)

gellenburg (61212) | about 3 years ago | (#37480994)

.I2P

http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de]

Perhaps with IPv6... (2)

seanmcelroy (207852) | about 3 years ago | (#37481010)

How about just create domain names using letters A through F and get creative with IPv6 hexadecimal abbreviated addresses. ;)

No DNS to legally hijack, as long as you can reasonably hold the IP address and scale solely through anycasting.

Re:Perhaps with IPv6... (1)

usmc4o66 (1605139) | about 3 years ago | (#37481116)

Doing this would break the system of distributing sub-networks based on geographic/network location. Breaking it would negate one of the points of IPv6: Smaller routing tables at the carrier level.

Re:Perhaps with IPv6... (1)

seanmcelroy (207852) | about 3 years ago | (#37481204)

Completely agreed, the suggestion was in jest. :)

Content is what matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481064)

Make a web site worth visiting and it will be found no matter what any government does.
Make a web site none cares about and well none cares about it.

Don't underestimate the US government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481150)

They are very good at "convincing" other countries to do what they want.

They not only forced many offshore banking countries to give up their customers' account details, they got it retroactively so years of bank records were compromised. Don't assume that you can trust anyone if the bad guy is rich and powerful enough.

Odd as it may sound (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#37481220)

In the long run, .cn seems to be the only one that won't bow down quickly to US demands.

It's kinda hard to stand up against the schoolyard bully if everyone's sucking up to him so they don't get beaten.

Re:Odd as it may sound (1)

nullchar (446050) | about 3 years ago | (#37481388)

But then you're at the whim of The People's Republic. Even Go Daddy is no longer a registrar [wired.com] for .cn domains after last December's registry rule change (which caught all registrars by surprise).

Re:Odd as it may sound (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | about 3 years ago | (#37482120)

It's kinda hard to stand up against the schoolyard bully if everyone's sucking up to him so they don't get beaten.

So your solution is to go suck up to the competing runner-up schoolyard bully?

content (2)

nnet (20306) | about 3 years ago | (#37481238)

What content are you going to offer that you feel may be subject to American censorship?

Re:content (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#37481350)

that's not the question.

ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'. haven't you been paying attention to how foul our laws have gone?

what's safe today may not be safe tomorrow. its wise to assume the US is hostile to free and open internet communication. essentially, this is the root of the problem and we have lost our trust from the world by our own bad behavior. I LIVE HERE and I don't trust us, fwiw.

Re:content (0)

ScentCone (795499) | about 3 years ago | (#37481568)

ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'

If by "anything," you mean "domains used by web sites that are set up explicitly to rip off other people's works, conduct fraudulent transactions involving counterfeit designer goods, fake drugs, and identity theft... then, sure. Because that's all that's been involved in such actions. Thousands of web sites ranting about the government and spewing every sort of ugliness are left unmolested because - odious as they are, it's free speech. Committing actual crimes isn't protected by the first amendment. So, what sort of crime were you planning to conduct using free and open communication?

Re:content (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481730)

Perhaps you didn't catch the part where they said "what's safe today may not be safe tomorrow".

Paranoid person is paranoid. News at 11.

If you don't want to help and only want to baselessly accuse people of crimes, go become a police officer. Otherwise, answer the damn question or keep your mouth shut.

Re:content (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 years ago | (#37482044)

We can trust the government with the power to confiscate domains because they're the government. Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right? They only get the big, bad criminals!

Re:content (1)

DrVxD (184537) | about 3 years ago | (#37481602)

The truth?

Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37482072)

'Nuff said.

Double-gotcha (4, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | about 3 years ago | (#37481250)

Okay, for starters you say you're worried about the U.S. gov't seizing your domain, but then you go and mention the MAFIAAFIRE list. Okay, so you want to run a torrent tracker... big surprise.

I see an inherent problem with CCTLDs: you may expect the ones from obscure nations to be "safer", because, well, they're obscure and that government might not give two shits about U.S. laws. But then on the converse, they may give a shit about U.S. money. The poor nations love bribery just as much as the militarized corporatocracy some 300 million people call "home".

The only real way to dodge the MAFIAA is thus:

1. destroy the MAFIAA

No, really. You either take the risk, and best case some ungrateful leech stools your site to the authorities and you lose your domain, worst case you get sued for six quadrillion dollars. The only other option is to launch World War 3, win, become supreme leader of earth, have every last motherfuckin' corporate robber baron drawn and quartered, and then you're pretty much free to post whatever the hell you want on (what's left of) the internet.

Re:Double-gotcha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481390)

+1 Informative

Re:Double-gotcha (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 3 years ago | (#37481410)

And .cn all ready has more USD than it realy wants. Right now it's your best bet for not caring what the US wants.

Re:Double-gotcha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37482202)

That, or find a way to seize control of communications.

I'm just saying.

Re:Double-gotcha (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | about 3 years ago | (#37482218)

And .cn all ready has more USD than it realy wants. Right now it's your best bet for not caring what the US wants.

And then the only thing you have to worry about is what .cn wants! A mere humble requirement of photo ID, address, bank account numbers and a pledge of eternal obedience(1) of everyone who wants a .cn domain...

(1) so far only they got as far as photo ID and address (which caused nearly all non-Chinese registrars to stop selling .cn domains) but the hour is young yet.

Just use NameCoin (4, Interesting)

brian0918 (638904) | about 3 years ago | (#37481346)

NameCoin [dot-bit.org] is a non-centralized, peer-to-peer DNS using the .bit TLD. It cannot be confiscated unless the entire p2p DNS network is shut down.

ME (1)

H0bb3z (17803) | about 3 years ago | (#37481394)

Demonoid.com moved themselves over to Demonoid.me precisely for this purpose...

As many have mentioned (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481482)

There are various P2P based DNS and TLD systems out there, be it Tor network, I2P or others.
These systems have various ways of letting you host content, such as having a .onion hidden site, or an eepsite page on I2P.
I'd suggest using the latter for not-stupidly-illegal content since it is a little bit faster at the expense of security, but if the content is just in a current morality war with some industry, it won't be removed and that is all that matters.
Well, this was at least the last time I used both Tor and I2P, haven't used them in years so speaking from old experience, test them out yourself of course.

If you are hosting potentially illegal material in the eyes of the US, just host it outside the US in a country that isn't run by greedy companies under the guise of government.
If you are hosting potentially illegal material in the eyes of most of the world, host it on the above networks. (and possibly feel bad depending on the content)
If you just fear your entire domain being blacklisted for no real reason, just host it in the US and don't bother with the paranoia.
Unless you piss off a megacorp, nobody is going to care about attacking you.

Better yet, if you have the cash, just buy all the domains on all TLDs, let them have fun with that one.

.to - Tonga, or other privacy-conscious registry (4, Informative)

nullchar (446050) | about 3 years ago | (#37481542)

I would not recommend .tv as VeriSign is the registry operator and they would be happy to disable your domain name, just like .com/.net.

Tonga is another tiny island nation - .to - but the registry has a web portal for direct registration (so you don't have to use a registrar which may bow to pressure) and they have a very private WHOIS policy. Almost no details can be gleaned from putting accurate information as the registrant contact.

I would recommend any ccTLD that allows direct registration through an HTTPS session. Avoid the registrar middlemen for ultimate control over your domain. However, you will be responsible for manually renewing your domain! And be sure to read the registry's fine print for how they may revoke a domain. Ensure the contact data is accurate so you can get any email / snail mail correspondence. This will help you defend your domain in case of a dispute, and help prevent against unauthorized transfers of the domain. Make sure the email account on record is not easily hijacked.

OpenDNS (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 3 years ago | (#37481596)

Does OpenDNS need to obey government seizure demands, or can they list whomever they want directed to whatever IP address they feel is correct?

DNS is a middleman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481714)

As DNS is inherently a "third-party" service when used in the context of the Internet at large, it is always vulnerable to censorship, whether by a governmental entity or operators of the service.

Not to fear, for two reasons:

  - Fortunately the hosts file has always been part of the standard TCP/IP stack in many operating systems. So, freedom-of-information-loving people, it is time to start publishing some hosts.txt files, and possibly develop some utilites can allow Joe Sixpack to install, track the age of, remove, and edit entries within prevalent operating systems.

  - Nothing really stopping anyone (other than time, money) from starting their own DNS root servers, or DNS servers that resolve certain domains locally and recurse resolution of other domains to other "standard root" DNS servers. Get an EC2 instance and put BIND on it. Always thought there should be a reserved "private" TLD for this purpose.

no domain (3, Interesting)

mr100percent (57156) | about 3 years ago | (#37481726)

Why bother with a domain name at all? Just use an IP address. Yes, unglamorous and looks uncredible, but it will stay up, right?

Re:no domain (2)

Skapare (16644) | about 3 years ago | (#37481822)

And go for IPv6 addresses. The MAFIAA probably doesn't even know what IPv6 is, yet.

Re:no domain (1)

Megane (129182) | about 3 years ago | (#37481846)

...and if you have to move to a different IP address, just post the new address on slashdot!

Re:no domain (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about 3 years ago | (#37482030)

I have one static/unshared IP at my ISP for this reason. I can serve content from it no matter what. They have a TOS, and they enforce it. I will play by those rules (no CP, no spam, that kind of stuff). But no one will take that server off-line. of course I don't really get all that much unsolicited traffic (which is fine by me), and I think Google severely demotes pagerank if you have no DNS entry.

Confiscation is such a nice word (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#37481760)

Try theft, larceny, deprivation, mugging, etc.

US will and wont? LOL WUT (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37481978)

You really think if the US takes the time to take down your site, some other country won't? Believe it or not, the US is the freest country in the world, give or take periods when your Lord of the Manor legalizes prostitution to pacify the masses.

Logical fallacy of the world #1: absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence

Just because you don't know if your government seizes domains doesn't mean they don't. It just means smart and intelligent people at the New York Times and Der Spiegel don't give a shit about your country. /thread

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37482288)

smart and intelligent people at the New York Times and Der Spiegel

Wake me up if they ever hire any.

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT (1)

imric (6240) | about 3 years ago | (#37482328)

ROFL you think THAT is a thread ending argument?

US government worker, are we?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?