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!

VeriSign Wants Ability To Suspend Domains Without Court Order

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the only-criminals-want-due-process dept.

Censorship 123

GeorgeK writes "VeriSign, the monopoly registry operator for .com/.net domain names, has submitted a proposal to ICANN (PDF) describing an 'Anti-Abuse' policy. If allowed to proceed with such a policy, they would become judge, jury and executioner, with the ability to suspend or even cancel alleged 'abusive' domain names without due process for registrants. The proposal even recognizes that legitimate domain names may be taken down improperly, and offers a 'protest' procedure. However, VeriSign does not appear to offer any ability to protest an accusation of abuse before the suspension or cancellation. They intend to 'shoot first and ask questions later.'"

cancel ×

123 comments

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

Of Course... (2)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690508)

...this presents no opportunities for abuse.

Re:Of Course... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37690692)

Don't forget to pay your $299.99 VeriSign Domain Protection Reactivaton Fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!

Re:Of Course... (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691278)

Mod +10 insightful. That's exactly what will come next, or some sort of Verisign Domain Deactivation Insurance Fee. Why, after all ill deeds of this company ICANN still allowed them within a thousand miles of being primary root/registrar for the two most important TLDs is beyond me. VeriSign has shown sufficient avarice, maliciousness and incompetence on a sufficient number of occasions that it just baffles my mind that they didn't have it yanked years ago.

Re:Of Course... (1)

egamma (572162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691362)

VeriSign has shown sufficient avarice, maliciousness and incompetence on a sufficient number of occasions that it just baffles my mind that they didn't have it yanked years ago.

Do you have any assurance that someone else could do a better job? Better the devil you know...

Re:Of Course... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37691476)

Do you have any assurance that someone else could do a better job? Better the devil you know...

That is the devils argument.

Change, change again, change again and sooner or later you will find something you can tolerate.

Re:Of Course... (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691498)

I was the network guy for a small ISP when Verisign introduced Site Finder. Believe me, at that point my boss and I decided it couldn't be worse if Satan was running those TLDs, and we weren't quite sure if it wasn't Satan running them.

Re:Of Course... (3, Informative)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691622)

IIRC, ICANN/IANA tried to sue them out of business in the late 1990s when they partially screwed up DNS (replacing NXDOMAIN answers with their "domain finder" landing page). VeriSign won in the last second using legal tricks and soon made friends with similar minds in the US gov. Since then they grew rapidly and -which irony- went from rogue provider to "security provider" and even CA. Wikipedia has some very insightful articled about the "domain finder" affair.

OF course... (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691558)

It will be a mandated purchase, for $499.00, with cost savings to make that $599.00, you cocksmoking occupiers!

Re:OF course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37692146)

Then go somewhere else for your domain. That's your system working, you cocksmoking capitalist!

Re:Of Course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37692488)

Don't forget to pay your $299.99 VeriSign Domain Protection Reactivaton Fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!

Yet another example of the hate spewing form the left. No rational though, just slander at all costs. I am not sure what is more sad, the post of that it got modded to "insightful."

Re:Of Course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37692642)

language Timothy

Re:Of Course... (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693052)

Dibs on verisignisthedevil.com.

Re:Of Course... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690796)

I'm sure their solid record of "cooperation" will prove a valuable asset when the next round of selecting-the-guys-to-run-the-.com-TLD comes around...

Re:Of Course... (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691626)

The answer should be not no, but hell no. We don't need VeriSign. We can find other companies that will do what VeriSign does without violating our First Amendment right to free speech.

Re:Of Course... (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#37692188)

We can find other companies that will do what VeriSign does without violating our First Amendment right to free speech.

That shouldn't be hard, seeing how VeriSign only operates a few database machines. That said, VeriSign doesn't violate the First Amendment, seeing how that only prevents the government from limiting your free speech; as it turns out, that's one Hell of a loophole.

Re:Of Course... (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693352)

Good luck with that!

This is nuts (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690542)

Governments and corporations keep leapfrogging each other as the biggest threat to the Internet. How are we supposed to know which threat to focus on dammit!

Re:This is nuts (5, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690722)

You just have you realise that Goverment and Corporations are actually the same thing, then your job becomes easier.

Re:This is nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37690856)

Agreed.

Re:This is nuts (2)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691670)

Which is very close to the truth in case of VeriSign.

Re:This is nuts (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37692036)

Mussolini would be proud.

Re:This is nuts (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690844)

Governments and corporations keep leapfrogging each other as the biggest threat to the Internet. How are we supposed to know which threat to focus on dammit!

Don't trust either one. Don't take anything either one says at face value. Use caution before you proceed. The world (and the intertubes) has changed.

Re:This is nuts (4, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693286)

No it hasn't. You've just become more aware. You can trace deals like this at least as far back as the building of the railroads in the US. I believe that Britain has records of similar hijinks that go back to the middle ages. I'm sure other countries do too. They'd go back further, but corporations were invented during the middle ages. Before then, and even while they were developing, most of the slimy deals were made by individual wealthy people. Corporations didn't really become commonly dominant until after WWI, possibly as late as WWII. Before then the major problem was tycoons. And before them aristocrats.

None of them have ever been worth trusting as classes, though I'll admit that individual people were sometimes trustworthy. But that was unusual. Powerful organizations are not trustworthy. It's not money that corrupts, it's lack of consequences. You see it in corporations, you see it in politicians, you see it in police, you even see it in anonymous e-mail. It's pretty nearly universal. Some individual people avoid corruption. But it isn't what one should expect.

This is why control in civilization should be decentralized. So that people can't create for themselves "spheres of invulnerability". But this goes contrary to what everyone wants, because everyone wants a "safe space", where they can control what happens. This isn't a problem, unless that "safe space" infringes on other people.

P.S.: Anyone know a cell phone that has a white-list option? (I, too, want a safe space. A space where I can decide who is allowed to interrupt me.)

Re:This is nuts (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690910)

How are we supposed to know which threat to focus on dammit!

Don't. Build the distributed replacement for DNS.

Re:This is nuts (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691000)

DNS by it's nature requires some hierarchy. Either that or you end up with a system that's forced to use nonsense names like .onion sites and namecoin.

That said a DNS system could be controlled by a democratic online community, that's probably the best compromise.

Re:This is nuts (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691110)

The protocol between DNS servers would have to be changed in a P2P DNS system.

The protocol between DNS Server and clients would not have to change at the onset. Only once Corps and Govs decide to go MAFIAA on the new DNS system will the Client/Server protocol need to go Encrypted/Obfuscated. /RANT
My grand-children will not believe me when I'll tell them that DNS requests and answers used to be plain text and handled by a monopoly.

Re:This is nuts (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691146)

Yeah the encrypted P2P protocol is no problem, many systems have done that already. Administration is the problem if you want to retain anything resembling the current naming system.

Re:This is nuts (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691280)

That's where Social engineering comes in.
The same system that decides which DNSname belongs to which IP will have to Tamper/Troll proof.
-What happens when a Name changes hands?
-What happens when Judge decides to show the world he knows nothing about the DNS system to please the Rich/Gov?
That's the the fun part.

Gee, I just proved your point!

Re:This is nuts (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691382)

DNS by it's nature requires some hierarchy. Either that or you end up with a system that's forced to use nonsense names like .onion sites and namecoin.

The current DNS is a hierarchy, but that doesn't mean that every hierarchy has to be implemented like the current DNS, that every Internet naming system has to be hierarchical, or that any alternate system would require nonsensical names.

Re:This is nuts (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37692468)

A DNS system without an administrative body would require nonsensical names. Either that, or a first-come-first-served system, which is probably worse.

Re:This is nuts (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691006)

Build the distributed replacement for DNS.

So... DNS? DNS is already distributed. You are, however, faced with the age old problem of how to convince everyone else to switch. A few takedowns by Verisign isn't going to do anything.

Re:This is nuts (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691314)

So... DNS? DNS is already distributed.

The root of each TLD is centralized. That's how we wind up with TFA's problem.

There's a group that has something working reminiscent of the way torrent magnet links work. I can't remember their name now.

You don't need everybody to switch - you just need to get resolvers to support the alternate lookup method and provide a better solution for enough users. If it works right, most people don't notice the alternate plumbing.

Re:This is nuts (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691458)

There's a group that has something working reminiscent of the way torrent magnet links work. I can't remember their name now.

google for namecoin ? For some value of reminiscent, thats correct, for some value of correct anyway.

Re:This is nuts (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691868)

The root of each TLD is centralized.

Yes, but there's nothing stopping us as a collective from changing who controls those roots. If we want to give com to Joe Bob, it is just a matter of having everyone update their DNS server settings.

Re:This is nuts (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693316)

Yes, but there's nothing stopping us as a collective from changing who controls those roots. If we want to give com to Joe Bob, it is just a matter of having everyone update their DNS server settings.

I totally agree. Then we need to worry about how Joe Bob is going to behave instead of NetSol. Mass-consensus is good, but single points of failure are undesirable.

Re:This is nuts (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694416)

Right, except that would fragment the DNS infrastructure and break about 15 RFCs ... not to mention the entire concept of a URL, which is supposed to mean UNIVERSAL Resource Locator.

That's "Universal" as in, you won't have to say, "oh, yeah man, just go to example.com ... on MicroDNS, not QuicknetDNS."

Re:This is nuts (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37695266)

All true, and great for a time when John Postel was what it meant to run a registry. The RFC's didn't anticipate the kind of interference that NetSol is proposing.

There doesn't have to be namespace collisions, though. Why is it that Visa cards are all 4xxx, MasterCards are 5xxxx and Discover cards are all 6xxx? Couldn't Visa start issuing cards in the 5xxx range? Of course, but it's mutually beneficial for all of the players to interoperate. Nobody would trust a name service provider that was purposefully destructive (unless forced to through monopoly) so we would expect they'd operate in a trustworthy manner by default.

Also look at the world BGP routing table. It's all distributed, you have to earn trust to participate, and there are occasional mistakes. Even still, it lets me get these characters from here to wherever Slashdot's server are, and has proven effective, even if there's room for improvement. Imagine if everybody had to go register their routes through a single route registrar and make changes on their website.

Re:This is nuts (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694762)

You can not show any single system that is entirely distributed, even all P2P crap that is 'distributed' ends up with a central starting point in order for it to be useful.

Bittorrent? Useless without trackers and torrent sharing websites ... the trackers clearly can go away, but still need the central directory for sharing files.

P2P file sharing ... guess what? Same thing, still need a central starting point to find everyone else.

Anarchy doesn't work for anything other than Anarchy. What happens when you want my domain name, in a true P2P system there is no viable authoritative way to resolve the issue of who gets the name.

You can not name a single functioning completely distributed system in the world that has no authoritative systems involved in it once you get above single celled organisms. The fact that you think such systems exist shows you have absolutely no clue how the world works.

Re:This is nuts (2)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690930)

People who are greedy, people who are power hungry, etc. are the same no matter where. They go to where the path of least resistance is. In some countries they are the inner party. In others they wear top hats and monocles. At times they lead the guilds/unions. Sometimes they co-opt the press. In some they have the top hats, inner parties, unions and press badges.

The Noble Peace Prize was created after Noble realized his peaceful and life saving invention of TNT had been co-opted for war. TNT is just a tool. So is the press, government, unions and corporations. It is who is using them you need to consider.

Re:This is nuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37691422)

Your post would carry a lot more weight if you'd got Nobel's name right.

Re:This is nuts (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694234)

Or the invention. It was dynamite, not TNT. Two completely different things.

Pretty domain. 'Shame if something were to happen. (5, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690662)

I'm sure they will offer a service where your domain is "Pre-Verified" and not subject to abuse takedowns... For $1,000 per year, of course.

Re:Pretty domain. 'Shame if something were to happ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37690978)

Of course, you'll want to take advantage of their sensational offer you can't refuse on AIG's reputation insurance, too, while you're at it. :-)

Just your tax dollars at work. The hell with 1st amendenment, among others.

rgb

Re:Pretty domain. 'Shame if something were to happ (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690980)

$1k/year? Can I get your Verisign rep's number?

Slightly used domains for sale (2)

wulfbyte (722147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690704)

Doesn't matter if the original owner doesn't want to sell, for a price it can be made available.

Domain Names are Corporations are people! (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690738)

Domain Names have all the rights of corporations which are people ?

Many of these abusive domains are very fleeting and transient designed to live for just a few hours. If you want due process, it has to come before the registration. So domain name registration would then follow guidelines similar to Trade Mark and other corporation registration rules. It would slow down the registration process a lot and impact the fees Verisign is currently collecting. The domain name abuse is getting to be very bad, and it could trigger legislation. Legislation by the congress critters who imagine internet to be a series of tubes would put onerous burdens in the registrants and the registrars. So it is heading it off at the pass.

Re:Domain Names are Corporations are people! (4, Interesting)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690886)

Well then, a reasonable compromise to limit the potential for collateral damage might be a rule that makes it impossible for them to suspend a domain that's been registered in good standing for more than a year without full due process, and provides a way to register a domain quickly, but subsequently complete a more exhaustive registration process that -- when completed -- immediately grants the domain the same protected status as one that's been around for more than a year.

That way, they can still nuke botnet command & control domains, but somebody whose domain has been around for more than a year (OR who has completed the more time-consuming registration procedure) could sleep at night knowing that Metaphorical Judge Dredd isn't allowed to touch THEIR domain. It wouldn't completely eliminate collateral damage, but it would eliminate the overwhelming majority of situations where a legitimate domain owner could suffer financial damage due to a careless or hasty employee somewhere.

Re:Domain Names are Corporations are people! (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691526)

That way, they can still nuke botnet command & control domains

Not sure why that is the responsibility of the DNS registrar. Sounds a heck of a lot more like an ISP's job at the level of the IP router / bgp feed / resolving dns server.

The purpose is probably a lot more oriented toward pirate bay, planned parenthood, 4chan, those type of dns names.

Re:Domain Names are Corporations are people! (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691666)

Planned Parenthood? I think you put your tinfoil hat on too tight today.

Re:Domain Names are Corporations are people! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693290)

There are some conservative factions that consider Planned Parenthood to be the work of the devil.

Re:Domain Names are Corporations are people! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694834)

Its funny that he throws Planned Parenthood into a group with others that are confirmed criminal by any sane person on the planet.

Re:Domain Names are Corporations are people! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694822)

That way, they can still nuke botnet command & control domains, but somebody whose domain has been around for more than a year (OR who has completed the more time-consuming registration procedure) could sleep at night knowing that Metaphorical Judge Dredd isn't allowed to touch THEIR domain.

Yea, and so can the spammers who have been planning for this to go into effect and have had thousands of names registered for over a year now through various individual names and companies.

They can use one a day and even if it gets cut off within a few minutes of the spam starting, they'll still be making a fortune off of them.

Spammers are more than willing to play be any technical rules you want to throw at them. More spammers use SPF and Domain Keys to prevent getting marked as spam then normal mail servers.

Sounds like a fine idea. . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37690750)

as long as an entity can sue them for lost revenue and punitive damages if their domain is mistakenly taken down.

Re:Sounds like a fine idea. . . . (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690820)

That should provide robust protections for, oh, anybody who can afford a protracted legal battle... Shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Sounds like a fine idea. . . . (3, Insightful)

TouchAndGo (1799300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691036)

Add in the fact that they'll probably start slipping forced arbitration clauses in their contracts like a lot of companies are doing and I can't see this going wrong at all

Re:Sounds like a fine idea. . . . (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691164)

Are you suggesting that a kangaroo court where one of the parties gets to hire the judge, there is no jury, no record of the proceedings, and no requirement that the decision be made in line with settled law isn't Fair, Just, and Efficient?

Some people just hate America, I guess, can't reason with 'em...

Re:Sounds like a fine idea. . . . (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691642)

You clearly didn't read the linked PDF file...

(c) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Verisign, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and
employees;

They won't start slipping in forced arbitration clauses because they're already in there. They literally stated that the new policies are meant to avoid any liability for their actions.

Anonymous (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690766)

I think it's time for Anonymous to take down Verisign...

Re:Anonymous (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690836)

Sure, like THAT wouldnt add more fuel to the fire.

Re:Anonymous (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690858)

A DDoS or a petty "doxing" would be boring; but my schadenfreude lobe would be pulsating with happiness if their private signing key(s) were to make their merry way into the world.... Can you imagine the mayhem?

Re:Anonymous (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691284)

I'm all for it if it gets ICANN to terminate Verisign's .com and .net registry contract.

Re:Anonymous (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691374)

Well. It'll take that to make people think about our crappy system controlled by corporations. Then, maybe, we'll find and adopt something that actually works and is secure.

That said, I have an interior grin (correction, it just came out) just thinking about the face of the top-management at VeriSign the day they discover their private keys on the web.

Re:Anonymous (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694622)

You know what would be even cooler? If Anonymous found a polynominal-time method of factoring large semi-primes, thereby breaking the RSA cryptosystem, and published the algorithm!

Now *that* would cause mayhem, and be perfectly legal too!

It's a little harder though.

Re:Anonymous (-1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690902)

And what does that accomplish? More people (me included) saying 'oh look, "anonymous" is acting like a bunch of annoying fucking douche bags again'? They aren't going to disrupt anything. They aren't going to take out the root dns servers, they aren't going to stop Verisign from doing business, they're just going to make more people realize how utterly retarded the whole concept is.

Anonymous is nothing but a group of spoiled brats who discovered someone elses scripts for DDoSing. Stop treating them like some sort of vigilante fighting the good fight, thats not what they are. 'They' are just a bunch of immature morons.

Says more about you than Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37691126)

Says more about you than Anonymous, doesn't it.

I mean, Verizon are acting like a bunch of fucking douche bags again. AND they're going to disrupt a lot of things. Yet YOU are happy to let them. In fact, anyone who has "no chance" of affecting them even THINKS of interfering, you'll defend the bigger douche bags.

Re:Says more about you than Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37692376)

Verizon? When did they enter this shit-sling fest?

Re:Says more about you than Anonymous (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694910)

No, it shows that you have a really childish view of the world and you need to grow up.

I effect Verizon EVERY FUCKING DAY by not paying them a god damn dime. There are legitimate ways to deal with businesses, and there are childish, obnoxious and criminal ways to deal with someone. I choose the former, and you're too ignorant to know the difference between it and the latter. The thing is, Verizon ISN'T THAT BAD, because people still give them business BY CHOICE.

The difference is, the issue thats got your panties half a meter up your twat isn't really that big of an issue to those of us who actually have shit to do other than rage against the machine and fuck up shit for other people.

You'll figure it out sometime after you get out of school and actually have to function in the real world where this kind of childish bullshit does nothing but get in your way. Anonymous has yet to affect ANY CHANGE AT ALL. The best they've done is bring attention to their douche-bagged-ness. They didn't hurt Amazon, they didn't hurt Visa, they haven't hurt anyone, if anything, they've given free advertising to these companies. You're just too young and ignorant to realize they are experiencing the Streisand effect.

Every mature person in the world sees it, just not angsty teenagers. As I said, after you grow up a bit, you'll get it, until then, no one will convince you otherwise.

Summary execution (2)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690812)

I am asking for such powers. Just because I asked for it, does not mean I will get it.

Two word - F*** OFF (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690884)

Seriously, as if they wouldn't abuse their position, yet again...

I support it.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690890)

IF they make Digital trespass, I.E. cracking into any company's servers and DDOS attacks legal activity. I fully support them being able to do DNS resolution Attacks on their customers.

Re:I support it.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37691852)

Revoking DNS will do nothing to block DDOS and similar outgoing hacks. It could be used to quickly take down scam/malware pushing sites though.

Re:I support it.... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694932)

IF they make Digital trespass, I.E. cracking into any company's servers and DDOS attacks legal activity.

In America thats already true.

Any Unauthorized access to a computer system is prohibited by law and punishable by large fines and jail time, has been since Mitnick's time at the least.

Re:I support it.... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694960)

I should add, that 'unauthorized' means any sort of access you aren't allowed to do, regardless to how you do it. Doesn't matter if I say 'The password to my account is fifty7', unless you are specifically authorized to use it, its still illegal for you to do so, just like its illegal for you to enter my home even if you found a key without my authorization.

This is why we need a peer-to-peer solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37690922)

They cannot be shut down, nor stopped. That is a wonderful thing - as long as a government has the ability to do something, it will find a way to use it to the detriment of its people. The best way to fight that is to remove the weapon from their insane fingers...

Re:This is why we need a peer-to-peer solution... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691676)

They cannot be shut down, nor stopped. That is a wonderful thing - as long as a government has the ability to do something, it will find a way to use it to the detriment of its people. The best way to fight that is to remove the weapon from their insane fingers...

VeriSign now is the government?

Yes, I read the FA. (4, Interesting)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690924)

They intend to 'shoot first and ask questions later.'

This is helpful for potential malware/virus/etc sites - take it down NOW and address afterwards. As long as the ones taking the deactivation move witness it themselves, it's doable.

The problem comes with reports. Let's say you get 100 reports of a domain being a nasty one in a 5-minute period of time. You just *wham-bam* take that domain down without looking at it and you could have just been the worst link in a staged act chain.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm posting what I witness daily: Everyone wants to save money, including big companies. If VeriSign were to have this ability (along with other TLD registrars), then they will likely want to automate everything they can. See paragraph 2 above.

Re:Yes, I read the FA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37695424)

Verisign's request reminds me of spam-fighting in the 1990s. If you found a spamvertised website, you emailed the domain registrar and you expected them to revoke the domain registration within 24 hours with no refund, no protest policy, and publication of the domain owner's information on nanae so every other domain registrar and ISP in the world could refuse them service. No one considered it a censorship/YRO issue back then except for spammers.

Monopoly? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690968)

Don't we have laws and such against these? For what reason is this company still whole?

Re:Monopoly? (3, Informative)

imric (6240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691046)

You can be a monopoly. It's not illegal.

It's illegal to abuse monopoly status, though.

Re:Monopoly? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691234)

Something like this seems to fall under the category of "abuse", but I'm sure the well oiled lawmakers see it differently.

Re:Monopoly? (1)

imric (6240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691496)

*chuckle* Not the power to abuse, but the act of abuse. Lawyers will get paid every time it happens. *cha-ching*

Re:Monopoly? (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691842)

Something like this seems to fall under the category of "abuse", but I'm sure the well oiled lawmakers see it differently.

The US government WANTS this. They can then do takedowns without even the pro forma court-orders they get now; just a word to Verisign and the domain is gone, no questions asked.

And this is how censorship is privately done. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37690990)

See. If you 'let it be' and everything becomes private, you end up in that situation - private parties, on which you have no rights over, decide how you live your life. what you hear, what you can know.

Re:And this is how censorship is privately done. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37694984)

I can choose to use a TLD other than .com, making this another one of your angsty yet utterly ignorant posts.

yes. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37695112)

and the interests behind this will be as stupid as to not pursue any further avenue to censor is it. are you forgetting that icann is a private american corporation, and currently holds domain name system ?

It's probably legal to fight them with weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37691044)

This would clearly be a 'terroristic act' as it's anti-democratic and a quick path destroy the US in the long term by sneaking in procedures to circumvent the "Separation of powers".

Let they do, and then fight and burn them down for you fatherland.

Process (1)

MrSmith0011000100110 (1344879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691068)

What's the process to report an abusive domain? I've taken as much abuse from these people as I can stand. I'd like to report verisign.com

Whatever they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37691158)

They already have a license to print money, and nothing they do appears to endanger their monopoly. Why should ICANN stop them now? No need to make them push back on copyright holders complaining to them, they want to just rubber stamp those complaints and shut the domains down.

Re:Whatever they want (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691366)

If ICANN wouldn't tear those TLDs out of Verisign's hands despite the fact that they basically broke DNS (and a bunch of other things, most infamously a lot of SMTP anti-spam measures) with their "Site Finder" service, I doubt very much that there's anything Verisign could do right now that would compel ICANN to go after them again.

Send Comments to ICANN (5, Informative)

GeorgeK (642310) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691188)

Thanks for accepting the article. ICANN is still reviewing the proposal. If folks share my concerns, please do send them your comments by emailing registryservice@icann.org (from the top of ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Process page [icann.org] ). You can view comments by others here [icann.org] . EasyDNS has submitted their concerns too.

At a minimum, they should open up a formal 30 day public comment period that is widely advertised, in order that domain name registrants can be heard.

This might make sense for domestic-only... (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691298)

... in countries where the government-licensed utilities already have this power.

If TLD management were split among countries, so that Verisign handled .com and .net for US-based companies and foreign subsidiaries or foreign registrars handled it in foreign countries, then this kind of power might make sense for some foreign subsidiaries of Verisign or for some foreign registrars.

As for companies based the United States who use a domain registrar in the United States, yanking a domain name without a court order insults the Constitution.

Just say no to idiocy (1)

RHoltslander (2132652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691370)

Just say no to idiocy. I hope their "proposal" is rejected as the bad idea that it is. Mind you, it just encourages me and everyone else to dump this monopoly in favour of other ones that are less obnoxious. I.e. other domain registries e.g. country codes or .org or whatever.

Re:Just say no to idiocy (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693490)

Unnh...ICANN is authorized by act of congress. They have a contract with Verisign. So this is a legally authorized monopoly.

You can only "dump it" by refusing to use the *.com and *.org domains. (I *think* org is the second one.) So the question would then be "Who do you want to register your domain with?". Fortunately there are more answers this year than there were a few years ago, and fewer people are even aware what the domain is...but I'm always a bit hesitant when the link is to a domain that I don't expect. Like *.tv or *.ck.

So "dump it" is doable, but it has significant costs.

This is a great idea. (2)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37691658)

I propose that they should not only implement this idea, but to track down the offenders and subject them to a gratuitous full body cavity search. You should be glad they won't need or require your consent, as this will be for your own good.

Get fucked Verisign (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37692272)

Anyone who thinks this won't be used to either bully the little guy into giving up his domain for corporations or just milk more money from customers is being very naive.

There are some benefits to a policy like this (1)

jeffnathan (746526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37692318)

If you sum the number of days in each step of the Uniform domain name dispute resolution policy you quickly see that it can take tens of days to get a malicious domain shutdown. ICANN has long been in need of the ability to quickly react to burgeoning threats and though the ambiguity of the policy as described is concerning it's not without merits.

In other words (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37692340)

Verisign wants all your base are belong to us

"Did not consult with end users" (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37693172)

Q: Were consultations with end users appropriate? Which groups were consulted? What were the nature and content of these consultations?
A: As a registry operator, Verisign did not consult with the registrants of .com/.net/.name domain names.

Verisign is trying to expand their central but minor role as a registry operator into control of the whole system. Their agreement with ICANN expires on November 30, 2012, and, ICANN could choose to get another registry operator. Right now, no proprietary technology or big staff is needed to be the registry operator. This added complication would make it tougher for ICANN to switch registry operators.

So that's why they're doing this.

SWEAR-a-SWINE becomes Dictator again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37694686)

Verasign continues to pull these dictator moves as the years go by. Get rid of Verisign!

It's just fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37695062)

As long as they pay damages when they make a mistake.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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