Ask Slashdot: Best ccTLD To Avoid Confiscation? 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?"
Best domain not to get stolen: (Score:2, Insightful)
.onion
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can write 1+1=3 on paper thousands of times and it doesn't make it right. It's reputable sources which matter.
Re: (Score:2)
If we take 1 as a string "1" and the + for standard string concatenation
When entered "1"+"1" we get a string of "11"
And in binary 11 = 3. So in the right context 1+1=3
Re: (Score:2)
I can write 1+1=3 on paper thousands of times and it doesn't make it right. It's reputable sources which matter.
I can write "US Navy and NSA" on a piece paper many times.. oh wait, it's already been done - what's these "funding" and "project" heading things mean? (duh). Your demand to be spoon-fed doesn't make you smart. Smug, stupid, and lazy - but not smart.
I can also write "everyone's opinions are equally valid" - but then I'd be a moron like you. Enjoy your opinion - you clearly deserve it.
The rest of the evolving planet thanks you for reminding us of the standards we are trying to raise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know the people involved in writing Tor. And the EFF is involved in writing it. No, that's not what it's for. The people I know would be shouting that from the rooftops if the project they were working on had been turned to that purpose.
It might be that it has been used for that purpose because of some Iranians being incautious about how they're using Tor. Tor isn't magic, and you can destroy your anonymity while using it fairly easily.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was talking about allowing people in Iran who wanted to communicate with the outside world to do so. It is most certainly what TOR was developed for.
And the US Navy was also involved in writing it.
.onion (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
.onion +1
Other than that, domains in alternate TLDs registered with OpenNIC.
Re: (Score:2)
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, w
Re: (Score:2)
.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.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh no, it was the .ch that survived. That's Switzerland.
Does not matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
They'd have to hijack the entire TLD to achieve it though.
Does it matter? (Score:2)
If the server is on US Soil, can't they just confiscate the rack or demand that the data center remove the site?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that does make the difference: physical manpower and cost verses a computer button.
It's the same argument I here for allowing the police to put a GPS device in your car. Yeah, they could spend the manpower to follow your car but they make it cheaper by just putting the GPS device on your car.
I've seen various jurisdictions on both sides of the fence. At some point, we as a people are going to be okay with zero privacy. I hope this point is after I'm dead.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Or host on an .onion site and use the domain as a proxy. Boom, untraceable hosting.
well... (Score:5, Funny)
I started being partial to
Invisible Internet Project (Score:4, Interesting)
.I2P
http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de]
Perhaps with IPv6... (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Completely agreed, the suggestion was in jest. :)
Odd as it may sound (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
So your solution is to go suck up to the competing runner-up schoolyard bully?
content (Score:3)
Re:content (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right?
I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.
Your local police have probably mis-handled at least one 911 call, too. I would recommend that you disband your local PD, since they can't be trusted. Better to have no police to take care of armed robbers, rapists, burglars, con artists and the rest than run the risk that they might make a judgement call you don't like somewhere along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
answer the damn question or keep your mouth shut
I'm sorry you're so rhetorically impaired that you can't understand that an honest question wasn't asked, any my question in return served to point that out. Excellent discourse on your part, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth?
Double-gotcha (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, when I go to dot-bit.bit I get server not found, just like the more than 99% of the population that won't be manually adding the dot-bit nameservers to their DNS. If this was the answer, he would just run his own home DNS and tell everyone wanting info from him to add that.
.to - Tonga, or other privacy-conscious registry (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can do whatever they want...until the US government gets pissed at them.
OpenDNS is based in San Francisco (Score:2)
no domain (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
And go for IPv6 addresses. The MAFIAA probably doesn't even know what IPv6 is, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get a direct portable allocation from an RIR.
Confiscation is such a nice word (Score:2)
Try theft, larceny, deprivation, mugging, etc.
There is no due process (Score:3)
A domain name is a valuable asset, and as such should be treated as property when it comes to 4th Amendment. Seizures require no indictment, no trial, no conviction. The owners get no notification, no chance to challenge the seizures.
The copyright industry directs its DoJ employees (yes, they have several highly-placed in the Obama DoJ) to take down a domain, the DoJ shows it to a magistrate that only hears their side, and he rubber-stamps the seizure.
They have seized domains so far that were shown to not b
My Recommendations (Score:2)
I recommend .info, .me, and .ph
http://icefilms.info/ [icefilms.info] have been around several years now and moved to .info and are hosted in amsterdam I believe.
http://kat.ph/ [kat.ph] kickasstorrents changed to .ph to avoid domain confiscation
http://demonoid.me/ [demonoid.me] Demonoid moved to .me to also avoid domain confiscation as the .ph and .me ignore US requests
You will also have to check into hosting that ignores DMCA requests which are plenty, check Amsterdam hosting sites
http://www.dot.ph/ [www.dot.ph] for registering .ph domains
http: [domain.me]
Country Code vs. gTLD jurisdiction (Score:3)
.info is a gTLD, running under ICANN rules. Since the only IP that ICANN cares about is Intellectual Property, not the Internet Protocol, you can expect that the Trademark Police want to control it. On the other hand, Afilias is registered in Ireland, not the US, so there's some chance of getting due process (to the extent that UDRP gives small players due process), compared to a US-based registrar (who tend to just roll over and play dead when requested.)
But .me is the ccTLD for Montenegro, so even if A
Iceland, IMMI, ISNIC and .is ccTLD (Score:4, Informative)
The .is ccTLD has consistently rated as one of the best run ccTLDs out there. In this piece of news item on the ISNIC web site:
https://www.isnic.is/en/news/view?id=203 [isnic.is]
That basically says that they will take down domains only if one of three conditions is met:
1. Non payment of registration fees
2. If the whois records and registration information is incorrect (the are very strict about the technical setup of domains in whois and dns)
3. If the cops show up with a court order (has never happened in 25 years of the ccTLD
Also, let's not forget this:
http://immi.is/ [immi.is]
The Icelanders are going to make their country a safe haven for freedom of expression and the press, so the legal framework will be there for this tld to be the safest in the foreseeable future.
Re:It can't just be me (Score:5, Insightful)
To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.
Contributory or vicarious infringement (Score:2)
To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy.
Is this also true of contributorily infringing copyright or vicariously infringing copyright?
Re: (Score:3)
OCILLA (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
What dream world do you live in? First, your understanding of the law is flawed. A takedown request is not required before a lawsuit can be filed, and you can still be liable for copyright infringement. Righthaven started many lawsuits over copyright infringement without any DMCA takedown request preceding the lawsuits. Once you're sued, you have to spend time and money to respond. If the party on the other side is big enough, it doesn't matter if you end up being "liable" or not...if they can prove th
Precedents are trickling out (Score:2)
First, your understanding of the law is flawed.
I acknowledge this; I've never been to law school. But 1. it's a sorry state when people are expected to follow laws that they don't understand, and 2. it's your turn to show that these flaws are relevant.
Righthaven started many lawsuits over copyright infringement without any DMCA takedown request preceding the lawsuits.
As I understand it, that was about articles posted by the operator of the site, not about articles posted by subscribers. The liability limitation under OCILLA extends only to materials posted by subscribers.
If the party on the other side is big enough, it doesn't matter if you end up being "liable" or not...if they can prove they sued "in good faith", you probably aren't going to be awarded anything to offset your legal fees.
The courts are slowly getting around to interpreting OCILLA, defining what it means to sue in good
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, that was about articles posted by the operator of the site, not about articles posted by subscribers. The liability limitation under OCILLA extends only to materials posted by subscribers.
That's not important. There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing, even if the content was posted by a user of the site and not the site operators.
Once the big wealthy targets win these lawsuits, the little guys can use the precedents.
If they can afford to, and they can convince a judge that their situation is exactly the same. Otherwise, prepare for a long and expensive battle.
That's being litigated [techdirt.com].
No, it's not. The seizure has happened. What is being litigated is whether the US has to give it back. Regardless of the outcome, there won't be any legal fees awarded (s
Re: (Score:2)
There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing
If the copyright owner doesn't send the takedown notice before suing, the defense will be that the facts are close enough to those of Viacom v. YouTube. What part of "A service provider shall not be liable [...] for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider [participates in the takedown procedure]" am I missing, other than the fact that large comp
Re: (Score:2)
That's not important. There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing, even if the content was posted by a user of the site and not the site operators.
There may not be a requirement to a takedown notice, but if one isn't made it can show bad faith on the part of the plaintiff in such a lawsuit that lesser measures weren't taken in the first place. This would be especially true if the infringement is relatively minor such as a couple photos out of hundreds of otherwise legal photos or related kinds of "intellectual property" that might be on the website or other medium which is being used to display the disputed content.
Certainly a judge would look at suc
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the seized sites never made a copy.
The submitter did not mention infringement and I think the question should be approached in the general "what if I want to host things the US government does not approve of" manner. Things like whistleblowing, gambling, consensual porn illegal in US, "hate" speech, anti-US islamic propaganda, selling patent or trademark infringing stuff (that's not copyright), unregulated financial services, recreational drugs etc. Any of these could easily determine the US authorities to seize your domain - and for each an
Re:It can't just be me (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.
You've got that backwards. Spoken like a citizen of the United States, perhaps, but the American Tradition is founded on Liberty. Sadly, America is nearly extinguished in the United States.
Re:It can't just be me (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is it "guilty until proven innocent?" Ah, right kompade Amepikan ...
Re: (Score:2)
Seizure laws have been on the books since the 19th century. By the same token sites shouldn't be seized unless there is proof. Lets say the government thinks your car was used by your mother to deal drugs, then that's all they need to take it. I ain't no lawyer but I think innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to property.
Re: (Score:2)
Seizure laws have been on the books since the 19th century. By the same token sites shouldn't be seized unless there is proof. Lets say the government thinks your car was used by your mother to deal drugs, then that's all they need to take it. I ain't no lawyer but I think innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to property.
It's called "reversal of onus" - except that some Americans believe that by not calling it that, they can still be morally righteous. I wouldn't blame the whole problem on a degraded education system either...
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Government is completely superfluous in that situation. The Common Law certainly recognizes property rights. Government just provides a means for communal retribution if your property rights are violated.
How do I avoid copying? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.
True, but some sites were shut down because they had downloads of music that were sent to the site by the record companies for promotion of the music.
Unfortunately, the lawyers don't bother talking to the promotion people.
Re: (Score:2)
Viacom's done that several times to themselves on Youtube. In fact, Viacom once got their own Youtube account banned for getting too many takedowns from Viacom.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than saying citation needed on something like this, why not show *ONE* case of the opposite?
Re: (Score:2)
That is not only not a domain confiscation, that's not even the government. It's a misuse of the courts/legal system on par with a SLAPP, and something rather different. Yes mistakes happen, yes there is some worry.
However, my problem with the "citation needed" comment, is it often very hard to impossible to find a reputable "none have existed" source, without pointing to *every* example where it could happen. In particularly large data sets, this isn't even terribly useful.
Re: (Score:2)
The record industry is full of such things. As a more recent example, ever heard about "girl's talk", which does some mash-ups? Would you say that his work isn't creation? That's what the record industry thinks, and of course, I don't share that point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
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] [tec
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
USA != PRC
Don't tell us, tell them!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It can't just be me (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ar
Re: (Score:2)
It was covered by slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/16/2239245/US-Govt-Mistakenly-Shuts-Down-84000-Sites
So, no, following U.S. law won't prevent U.S. authorities from taking down your site. Your best bet is to do what this guy is doing, find a hos
Re:First Amendment mean nothing? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah it doesn't seem that he ever said that (although it's easy to believe he did, considering the other things that came out of his mouth):
http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/ [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
So is a Wellstone plane a plane that is piloted by two borderline-incompetent pilots with a history of needing corrective reminders? Pilots who failed to maintain a safe airspeed and put the plane into an unrecoverable stall because they weren't paying attention to the instruments while looking for the airport that they were having difficulty finding under IFR flight? I don't see what incompetent pilots making a mistake have to do with a lawsuit against the go
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'd be more concerned about being put on a torture taxi. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
There was a big change. The moment Obama was elected he changed from a liberal to a neoconservative.
"What a TWIST!" - M. Night Shyamalan
Re: (Score:2)
nope, he's still liberal. He's just been stiemied from doing too much damage, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL you think THAT is a thread ending argument?
US government worker, are we?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's why Wikileaks' .com domain and US-based hosting was taken down while the .cn stayed up. America, the freest country in the world!
Re: (Score:2)
.ch - Switzerland, not .cn, China.