Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Police Demand Summary Domain Takedown, Traffic Redirection

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the please-and-thank-you-or-else dept.

Canada 251

Stunt Pope writes "This morning, Toronto-based domain registrar easyDNS received a request from the City of London (UK) police demanding that they summarily take down a BitTorrent search site based out of Singapore — or else they would 'refer the matter to ICANN' — suggesting easyDNS could lose its accreditation. The police further directed easyDNS to point all traffic for the domain to an IP address that promoted competing commercial online music services based out of London, UK." easyDNS raises some important questions in the blog post they put up after receiving the request. Quoting: "Who decides what is illegal? What makes somebody a criminal? Given that the subtext of the request contains a threat to refer the matter to ICANN if we don't play along, this is a non-trivial question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was something that gets decided in a court of law, as opposed to 'some guy on the internet' sending emails. While that's plenty reason enough for some registrars to take down domain names, it doesn't fly here."

cancel ×

251 comments

Douche-o-matic (5, Funny)

elloz (3382559) | about 10 months ago | (#45074163)

I summarily summarize this as an exercise in douchedom by dumb policemen.

Re:Douche-o-matic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074263)

Get over yourself. It's pretty fucking obvious these domains are torrent sites, and make a shit load of money from adverts and "donations for servers" while their only product is the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. They also sell seedbox subscriptions. The days of bedroom torrent trackers are gone, this is organised crime venturing into new fields and easy money.

Re:Douche-o-matic (4, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 10 months ago | (#45074379)

You do know that they do not distribute copyrighted material, right?

Re:Douche-o-matic (-1, Flamebait)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45074593)

Correct. They only benefit from others doing so.

Re:Douche-o-matic (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074833)

Yep, we should close all for-profit news channels, they benefit from all the horrible things happening in the world.

Re:Douche-o-matic (5, Insightful)

Anon, Not Coward D (2797805) | about 10 months ago | (#45075153)

they do not only benefit from them, they are the cause! (same as the "piracy" argument)

Re:Douche-o-matic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075201)

So does the City of London Police...

Re:Douche-o-matic (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074447)

But again, who decides what is Illegal? The UK demanding a Canadian based firm use UK law while in Canadian, while domain in question is for a company in a Singapore? There are three different countries that have laws here. so what law do you follow? Should the UK just block all traffic to that site? its ahell of a lot more complicated then you make it out to be.

Re:Douche-o-matic (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 10 months ago | (#45074731)

Four if they refer it to US-based ICANN....

Re:Douche-o-matic (5, Funny)

elloz (3382559) | about 10 months ago | (#45075017)

I tried complaining to ICANN once. They told me ICANN fuck off.

Re:Douche-o-matic (5, Funny)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 10 months ago | (#45074953)

The UK demanding a Canadian based firm use UK law while in Canadian, while domain in question is for a company in a Singapore?

Perhaps the UK should have their head of state take up the matter with Canada's head of state.

Re:Douche-o-matic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074455)

Quite apart from the veracity of your irrelevant claims there, the problem quite clearly lies in just who has jurisdiction. Where before it was at least a court of law (of, IIRC, Ohio and Kentucky on separate occasions) that ordered domains registered well outside their jurisdiction handed over to "law enforcement" to shut down sites that were hosted overseas and certainly not tried for the allegations made against them inside the jurisdiction they operated in, this is not even a judge simply ordering a domain handed over. Worse, accompanied by bullying, mob tactics. This is not what cops are supposed to do.

Not even against tried-and-convicted criminals, much less against not even tried and so innocent until proven guilty parties, who in the event would have no culpability regarding the allegations in the first place. Maybe this is news to you, but it is fairly important for law enforcement to stick to the law themselves, and in fact give the good example even where no laws exists. That is clearly not the case here.

I'd rather have the actual mob, since they can be bought and generally stay bought.

Re:Douche-o-matic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074545)

And you can prove this in a court or are you saying only those who dont look like they're doing something wrong deserve rights?

Re:Douche-o-matic (4, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 10 months ago | (#45074659)

This is a DOMAIN REGISTRAR, not the host of the content. They don't give you this information, they just tell you where to get it.

It's like someone walking around saying "JOHN DOE IS A RAPIST". Which in most places is perfectly legal as long as it's a factual statement. There's generally nothing illegal about telling people who is committing crimes.

If you want a more similar example -- there are entire websites whose sole purpose is to broadcast which neighborhoods in which cities you're most likely to find drug dealers -- yet nobody is shutting those down....

Re:Douche-o-matic (4, Insightful)

unrtst (777550) | about 10 months ago | (#45074979)

This is a DOMAIN REGISTRAR, not the host of the content. They don't give you this information, they just tell you where to get it.

And yet many sites HAVE been shutdown for doing just that - linking to content. It's wrong, and it's a slippery slope, but this is the next step - enjoy the slide.

That said, by no means should they be forced to redirect it to a site of the UK's choosing. They should just let it go to ICANN, or involve legal now and push the issue back on them immediately.

Re:Douche-o-matic (3, Insightful)

djdanlib (732853) | about 10 months ago | (#45075093)

It seems to me that it's more like walking around saying that Yellow Pages Inc. (or whatever, your favorite phone book) allows the immoral John Doe to list himself in their book.

They are not providing the website, the content, the hosting, or any of that. Domain registrars point numbers to names.

The registrar isn't there to decide morality. The hosting company is responsible for the content in their datacenters, not the domain registrar. I say they should take it to ICANN and watch the request be officially denied. Can't do anything there.

I'm just saying, use the appropriate channels to shut down content, rather than forcing the phone book to shut its doors over one person in the book.

Re:Douche-o-matic (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 10 months ago | (#45074701)

Get over yourself. It's pretty fucking obvious these domains are torrent sites, and make a shit load of money from adverts and "donations for servers" while their only product is the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. They also sell seedbox subscriptions. The days of bedroom torrent trackers are gone, this is organised crime venturing into new fields and easy money.

Due process is due process. Doesn't matter what your opinion is on the matter unless you're a judge or jury member.

Re:Douche-o-matic (4, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | about 10 months ago | (#45074811)

But have they made any money from anyone within the jurisdiction of the City of London Police. Just in case you don't realise, the City of London is the smallest city in England, with a population of just over 7000 people. Most of what people think of as London is covered by other cities and boroughs such as Westminster, and the Metropolitan Police looks after them.

too many assholes around here. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074199)

I didn't know Jack Thompson was licensed to practise law in the UK.

In before it starts... (5, Interesting)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 10 months ago | (#45074203)

The City of London is not the city of London (as if Britain vs UK wasn't confusing enough for foreigners). The City of London is about one square mile where a large number of big businesses operate. In the City of London, these businesses get to vote in local elections, normal people can't just run for political office, and the police are about as far away from publicly accountable as it's possible for law enforcement to get. When people in Britain refer to "The City" (compare with "Wall Street"), they're talking about this tiny piece of the capital.

In short, someone in big business has been crying to their rent-a-cop again.

Re:In before it starts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074321)

.. Its also not the city of London, Ontario.

Re:In before it starts... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 10 months ago | (#45074355)

Maybe .uk should outlaw City of London since it seams highly inappropriate.

Re:In before it starts... (1)

Anonymous Coward5226 (2724309) | about 10 months ago | (#45074365)

In other words ignore these rent-a-cop.

Re:In before it starts... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074429)

(as if Britain vs UK wasn't confusing enough for foreigners)

Let's see... Britain is an island (well, several islands actually, but the name often refers specifically to the big one), England is a country in Great Britain, UK is a federation of some countries in the British Isles which share a common monarch.

I'm from Africa so I'm pretty damn foreign - how did I do?

Re:In before it starts... (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 10 months ago | (#45074689)

Britain is just the one island [wikipedia.org] . The "Great" part is to distinguish it from [wikipedia.org] so-called "Lesser" Britain, which is Brittany, a chunk of France. (And this [youtube.com] , I gather, is how people feel about that.)

Re: In before it starts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074913)

Close, the United Kingdom isn't a federation

Re:In before it starts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074935)

I was once told about the difference between English and British. Apparently it is a class system. Being English is better than British, at least by her standards.

What does it matter though, as long as they have a sexy accent?

Re:In before it starts... (3, Informative)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 10 months ago | (#45074483)

The City of London is actually older than England. Just to confuse people more.

And then you have The Temple...

RCMP (4, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 10 months ago | (#45074669)

The distinction between the metropolitan police and City of London police is not really relevant here. The important issue is that a police service in a foreign country has attempted to order a foreign company around. The correct response is to politely let them know that Canada has been independent from the UK for a while now and that UK law not apply. Indeed it is somewhat surprising that they do not know this since many Londoners seem to think that anything beyond the M25 is in a foreign land. In addition, as a matter of courtesy, they should really have contacted the RCMP who I'm sure would be delighted to hear from their British colleagues and would love to explain the charter of rights and freedoms to them.

Re:RCMP (2)

postbigbang (761081) | about 10 months ago | (#45074769)

The City of London probably has no jurisdiction, although Canada and Singapore are both parts of the Commonwealth. Going directly, like this, has no merit at all, but it's a brazen attempt at huffing and puffing. Can one be extradited? Maybe on a good day after lots of back-and-forth legal prattle, and that's the point. The shot across the bow (sorry for too many metaphors) is notice that various barristers and solicitors may now enter the mix, meters running, to add nastiness to the equation.

Were I one of those, I'd say: go on your merry way but be advised that one of your tenants is an evil-doer. The moral obligation? That's up to the morality of the legal department at easyDNS.

Re:RCMP (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074865)

I used to get all kinds of demand letters while working at a registrar based in Canada. I just told them to go get a Canadian court order and we'd be happy to oblige. Never heard back from a single one.

Re:In before it starts... (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 10 months ago | (#45074673)

In short, someone in big business has been crying to their rent-a-cop again.

Why not? It costs nothing to file a complaint and give some bluster. It's not like they're going to be fined for submitting a false report, engaging in mob-style business tactics, etc. Every business should do this, not just big ones. Now, back to the article...

Who decides what is illegal?

People who are above the law.

What makes somebody a criminal?

Anyone who is upsetting the status quo.

...if we don't play along, this is a non-trivial question.

No, it is a trivial question. You're just young and naive. Sorry; I wish I had better news, and could tell you life was fair, but to quote the Man in Black in Princess Bride, "Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.â

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was something that gets decided in a court of law,

ICANN was established in 1998, and gained limited international participation in 2005. There has never been a court of law to decide who gets to own a name on the internet. It's far worse than a court; This shit gets decided by committee.

...as opposed to 'some guy on the internet' sending emails.

This isn't an e-mail. This is a business making a legal demand. You may be unaware of this, but anyone can make almost any legal demand in the United States, and indeed most westernized countries, without any substantial liability. You can be sued for anything as well -- color of your hair, look of your face, body fat content... and you have to show up to contest it. Now in those examples, it would be declared a frivolous action (in the USA) because it's obviously and patently absurd, but if you give it even the slightest hint of legitimacy, you can avoid that. My point is that the legal system is massively balanced to favor people who have wealth. You can abuse and harass the crap out of people, practically indefinately, if you're willing to kick a few schekles into the system. And... some wealthy individuals and businesses opt to do exactly that.

Now, winning your case... that's a whole 'nother can of worms. But when there's no penalty for losing save the filing fee and associated legal costs of retaining counsel, and a financial incentive if you win, then the equation is quite simple: If your costs divided by the risk is less than the benefit multiplied by the risk... it's good business.

While that's plenty reason enough for some registrars to take down domain names, it doesn't fly here."

Except that's exactly how ICANN is structured to operate. Is it unfair? Yup. Anti-competitive? Certainly. Corrupt? Arguments can be made. US-centric? Nailed. Hopelessly incompetent? Arguments can be made. Your tax dollars at work. :/

Re:In before it starts... (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 10 months ago | (#45075075)

This isn't an e-mail. This is a business making a legal demand.

If you actually read the message, you'll see what it is. It isn't a demand, thus fails the test of "legal demand".

It starts with a simple statement. Paraphrasing, "we believe that someone you are providing registration services for is doing something illegal and has invalid registration data." Then it makes a request. "Please investigate whether your customer is violating your terms of service " Who decides "what is illegal" in this case? easyDNS does. It's interesting that you claim that easyDNS is "above the law", since they are the ones who are making this determination. If easyDNS doesn't think they should be making this kind of determination, they should remove it from their TOS.

They ask for a hold to be put on the DNS registration data, and that if easyDNS does act to cut off service to the client that the domain name be pointed to a certain place. That's if easyDNS decides to act.

And then, most egregiously, they ask "please let us know what you've decided, one way or the other."

Yes, they point out the ICANN rules about correct registration data being a requirement. Big deal. I've pointed out the same requirements to the registrars of spammers many times. I've obviously been overstepping my bounds as a private citizen and demanding people be put in jail. Not.

Tempest in a tea pot.

Re:In before it starts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075181)

In short, someone in big business has been crying to their rent-a-cop again.

Why not? It costs nothing to file a complaint and give some bluster. It's not like they're going to be fined for submitting a false report, engaging in mob-style business tactics, etc. Every business should do this, not just big ones. Now, back to the article...

Why not, you ask? How about large companies getting treatment by a police force because they pay the bills? How about those same companies using their pet plods to put excessive pressure on insignificant little file sharers? How about a government wielding significant power with barely a semblance of actual democracy?

If this was any other part of the country, the police would have told their complainant to take it to the courts where it belongs and let them try and deal with some real criminals. In the City though, the more staff you have the more votes you get, all while you have your own private police force to send plausible-sounding threats to anyone who pisses you off.

How about you give us just one week free of your own particular brand of vapid, yet bafflingly popular posts? Seriously, not a day goes by when I don't see something up at +4 yet devoid of any insight, and scroll up only to find girlintraining. If you must indulge some sort of addiction you could at least trouble yourself to read up on the subject first... at least once in a while.

This isn't an e-mail. This is a business making a legal demand.

I take that back. For you it looks like reading the first word of the fucking title before you start would be an improvement.

Re:In before it starts... (0)

mooingyak (720677) | about 10 months ago | (#45075007)

When people in Britain refer to "The City", they're talking about this tiny piece of the capital.

Then they're wrong. Everybody knows "The City" means Manhattan.

http://83.138.166.114/ (5, Informative)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#45074209)

Go to the ip address in the complaint http://83.138.166.114/ [83.138.166.114]

It's got the message from the police, along with a bunch of logos of commercial companies, like the BPI.

So it's evident who they are working for.

Re:http://83.138.166.114/ (2)

Anonymous Coward5226 (2724309) | about 10 months ago | (#45074325)

The crime fighters have now become crime criminals it's bloody obvious. Using their power to suppress another should be a criminal offence.

Re:http://83.138.166.114/ (1)

elloz (3382559) | about 10 months ago | (#45074487)

Make sure you use Tor for that :)

Re:http://83.138.166.114/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074503)

This is outrageous. Not only do they get to steal your domain, but they put their own advertising up?

Hold on a minute - they've gone beyond DNS (0)

Viol8 (599362) | about 10 months ago | (#45074745)

Using the raw IP address should bypass any DNS redirection but we STILL get the police message. Have they taken over the actual web server too or even worse, somehow got the routing changed? How the hell did they manage that??

Re:Hold on a minute - they've gone beyond DNS (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074873)

Using the raw IP address should bypass any DNS redirection but we STILL get the police message. Have they taken over the actual web server too or even worse, somehow got the routing changed? How the hell did they manage that??

The IP address provided above is the site they want them redirect it TO, not the "Criminal" site in question

Re:Hold on a minute - they've gone beyond DNS (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#45074993)

Correct. I just pointing out the extra judicial collusion between the police and the media companies.

Re:Hold on a minute - they've gone beyond DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075095)

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:http://83.138.166.114/ (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45074787)

"You have tried to access a website that is under criminal investigation by the UK:"

Wait, they're investigating their own website? Or are they just so lonely they're not prepared for people intentionally going to their site?

Re:http://83.138.166.114/ (3, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 10 months ago | (#45074793)

If I have a legal media company in the UK, can I demand they put a link to my site on there as well?
Could media companies sue them for unfair competition?

Re:http://83.138.166.114/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075013)

Yeah, but what if they were trying to find a missing child. It would be obvious they were working for the parents of the child. What's you're point?

This is why I'm an EasyDNS customer (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | about 10 months ago | (#45074215)

They have solid service, and not just the simple stuff, but the ugly bits as well (granted they did let a few porn/gambling sites go after a series of massive DDoS attacks, but they gave them time to move as I understand it, they didn't summarily boot them off). When picking a DNS registrar/provider make sure you pick one that won't just turn your DNS off if someone decides to send an angry email to the registrar.

IPCU: London (4, Funny)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 10 months ago | (#45074227)

Intellectual Property Crime Unit: London would be the worst crime drama ever. It would consist entirely of people sitting at desks, sending strongly worded emails.

Re:IPCU: London (5, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 10 months ago | (#45074473)

Yes, but what would distinguish it from other potential shows featuring strongly-worded email-at-desk action is that the people doing it would be completely fucking unbearably obnoxious self-entitled arsebuckets. Or, at least employed, by them. So it'd really be more like a reality show.

Re:IPCU: London (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about 10 months ago | (#45074553)

No, they'd also have lots of cool effects where text is flying all around their screens and they would use a l33t cracking tool called WhoIS to find out who really owns a domain.

Re:IPCU: London (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074615)

I feel a south park style parody emerging.

Re:IPCU: London (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 10 months ago | (#45074725)

Intellectual Property Crime Unit: London would be the worst crime drama ever. It would consist entirely of people sitting at desks, sending strongly worded emails.

No, that's the public-facing side. The show would primarily consist of intense politicking and arm-twisting from the likes of the BPI.

Re:IPCU: London (3, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 10 months ago | (#45074735)

It'd make a great buddy cop show:
A straight-laced deskjockey forced to team up with a maverick with blatent disregard for the law in the City of London.
Together they write stern letters with no legal merit whatsoever.

Re:IPCU: London (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074823)

Intellectual Property Crime Unit: London would be the worst crime drama ever. It would consist entirely of people sitting at desks, sending strongly worded emails.

Couldn't agree more. It's time the U.S. and the U.K. drop this pseudo intellectual republodemocracy bull crap and come all out for the totalitarian states we are. One little phrase couldn't say more "We will kill you if you don't stop. Sincerely, Our Government. P.S. Have a nice day!"

Easy answers (4, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 10 months ago | (#45074235)

The money decides what's illegal.

Re:Easy answers (4, Informative)

NoxNoctis (936876) | about 10 months ago | (#45074575)

This couldn't be more true. Paris, France threatened to sue me if I didn't turn over my domain to them. Somehow they won the UDRP complaint when the requirements include not having threatened to file suit. Thankfully some rather fantastic lawyers helped me keep my domain. It's a scary world and the people with money don't make it any better.

Re:Easy answers (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 10 months ago | (#45075137)

What's the domain in question?

Are they sure that letter is legit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074237)

It looks like phishing to me.

Do what we say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074247)

Or we're telling on you!
 
Captcha: gaping

I'm not a doctor.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074257)

..but this looks like an obvious case of corruptitis.

Makes no sense at all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074265)

If this is the way things are done, police should also be able to force makers of GPS devices to redirect you to a pharmacy if you enter the adress for a location where they might be selling illegal drugs.

More Evidence (1)

Anonymous Coward5226 (2724309) | about 10 months ago | (#45074275)

that some of us programmers have sold out.

Courts? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45074281)

Don't be silly. Punishment after conviction is so old-fashioned. Today we've made the police far more efficient by allowing them to punish people before they're convicted.

you kill, they come back (0)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 10 months ago | (#45074293)

Kill 1, 10 pops up alive and kicking back. Makes me think of my step mother.

Fuck 'Em... (3, Insightful)

fallen1 (230220) | about 10 months ago | (#45074375)

They have no actual authority. Let them "send it to ICANN" and see if that international body doesn't basically shrug and say "Who gives a fuck. This is outside your jurisdiction." Even if ICANN doesn't, at least you will have your day in "court" so to speak.

Re:Fuck 'Em... (3, Insightful)

spacefight (577141) | about 10 months ago | (#45074591)

Did you say Fuck'em too when the DHS went even further and just coniscated the domains without due process?

Re:Fuck 'Em... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075177)

I have no sympathy to any DHS employee that gets attacked by people who have had enough of their crap. DHS is creating their own problem, and they should not be going along with that.

Re:Fuck 'Em... (2)

fallen1 (230220) | about 10 months ago | (#45075183)

Yes. Why should I change my decision making process based on whether the City of London police are doing the wrong thing or if the United State's Department of Homeland Security is doing the wrong thing.

THEY BOTH DID THE WRONG THING. We, as citizens of these countries (or residents of cities, and so forth), should stand up for what we know to be wrong - even if the consequences be harsh. Until WE do, THEY will continue to do almost as they please.

Exactly (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 10 months ago | (#45074845)

They're just hoping the word "police" will make the admins wet their pants. Its all bluff and hot air, there's nothing they can do other generate more hot air. Eventually they'll get bored and move on to real crimes that are in their jurisdiction instead of trying to play world policeman.

Re:Fuck 'Em... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074959)

Look, I agree with "fuckem", but there's no reason to antagonize them. When some lying inspector from the city I was living in threatened to take me to court over something, I documented everything and put it in an envelope so I'd be ready for that. It would have taken 5 minutes with the judge to get the case dropped, but it never happened. In part, because I ignored the threats and didn't reply in kind.

The bogus "City of London" is blowing smoke, but you still don't want to be the target of these petty fake policemen working what is effectively a corporate bank that some king gave too much power to.

soon... (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 10 months ago | (#45074449)

it doesnt seem to be far off where the internet is split into many parts with no centralized registry.

Stay strong EasyDNS! (1)

Dretep (903366) | about 10 months ago | (#45074461)

Um, why don't they just contact the hosting provider or IP-block owner to takedown the site if they suspect illegal activity? The domain is just an 'easier' way for people to access the site. If EasyDNS succumbs to this I'll have to seriously think about moving to another registrar. Not that I'm running anything quesitonable but what if a user in one of my domains sends something questionable and is investigated by police and orders EasyDNS to takedown my domain... Food for thought.

Re:Stay strong EasyDNS! (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 10 months ago | (#45074571)

Um, why don't they just contact the hosting provider or IP-block owner to takedown the site if they suspect illegal activity?

As the summary says, this is a site based in Singapore. I imagine they don't care what some policeman in City of London thinks of the site.

Re:Stay strong EasyDNS! (1)

Dretep (903366) | about 10 months ago | (#45074675)

I wouldn't care either. Disabling the domain isn't going to bring the site down. Just a minor inconvenience for users.

"demanded"????? sensationalist editors are dumb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074507)

from the article: "It would be appreciated if you would... Kind regards,"

Re:"demanded"????? sensationalist editors are dumb (2)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 10 months ago | (#45074567)

In the UK and Canada that's about the strongest language you will find. It translates to American as "We demand. Or else!!!".

Re:"demanded"????? sensationalist editors are dumb (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 10 months ago | (#45074889)

from the article: "It would be appreciated if you would... Kind regards,"

Maybe you should read the whole letter.

"In respect of the information provided by us, we respectfully ask you to consider your liability and the wider public interest should those services be allowed to continue."
"We reserve the right to refer the matter to overseas counterparts/governmental organisations, and/or to ICANN."

To translate that into more plain language:

"Well, nice domain registry you've got here. Would be a shame if something... unfortunate happened to it. But don't worry, my friends and I would be happy to provide you with a little extra protection, as long as you would do us a favour first."

Hmmm ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45074509)

Do these people have any concept of jurisdiction and courts of law?

So a police force in London demands a registrar in Toronto take down a site based in Singapore?

Me, if I got a request like that from a foreign police force, my response would be "fuck you, show me some paperwork from a court in my jurisdiction, until then, you don't matter".

This is no different than any piss pot country from trying to control the internet. It doesn't work like that.

If it isn't a .co.uk domain, the police force of the City of London have no standing.

Idiots.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 10 months ago | (#45075155)

Do these people have any concept of jurisdiction and courts of law?

Yes. In the request, they refer to UK law, not Canadian.

So a police force in London demands a registrar in Toronto take down a site based in Singapore?

No. There is no demand in what they wrote.

Me, if I got a request like that from a foreign police force, my response would be "fuck you, show me some paperwork from a court in my jurisdiction, until then, you don't matter".

They are asking you to review one of your customers and whether they are violating your own terms of service. Why should it take a court of law for you to do that? If you don't want to enforce your own TOS, why do you have one?

If it isn't a .co.uk domain, the police force of the City of London have no standing.

They have every right to point out a potential violation of your TOS to you and ask that you review it. And they have every right to ask that you let them know what you've decided.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074535)

ME! It's official rec1procating OF AMERICA) is the Baby take my much as Windows little-4nown [anti-slash.org] free-loving climate

Request for take down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074539)

Need the full public name and address of person making request.
That should end most of them.

Police are right; easyDNS response is drama-queen (5, Informative)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 10 months ago | (#45074623)

Read the actual police request. It says:

We request that you review your processes to see if you provide a service for the identified domain(s). If so, we would ask you to review the terms and conditions on the basis of which that service is provided and withdraw or suspend the service if you are satisfied that the terms and conditions have been breached

And the police helpfully highlight the relevant line from EasyDNS terms of service:

easyDNS Terms of Service: easyDNS reserves the right to revoke any or all services associated with a domain or user account, for policy abuses. What constitutes a policy abuse is at the sole discretion of easyDNS and includes (but is not limited to) the following: ... copyright infringement ...

But now the easyDNS got on his drama-queen high horse. Here's what he wrote:

Who decides what is illegal? What makes somebody a criminal? Given that the subtext of the request contains a threat to refer the matter to ICANN if we don't play along, this is a non-trivial question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought it was something that gets decided in a court of law, as opposed to "some guy on the internet" sending emails

Well the answer's clear. From his own terms of service, HE is the one who decides whether easyDNS should terminate service, at his discretion. Not a court. The police's request was solely that easyDNS should themselves determine whether this user had breached their own terms of service.

Re:Police are right; easyDNS response is drama-que (2)

Dretep (903366) | about 10 months ago | (#45074719)

Has EasyDNS even actually contacted London UK police to verify this is legit? Could just be the "competing commercial online music services based out of London, UK" spoofing the police to drum up business. How could the police expect traffic to be redirected? Sounds phishy...

Re:Police are right; easyDNS response is drama-que (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 10 months ago | (#45074739)

Exactly. Police helpfully highlighted their own stupidity.

extortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074639)

The City of London police should be referred to the District Attorney for prosecution for the crime of extortion.

WTF? I'm in Finland, the site is in Singapore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074645)

WTF? I'm in Finland, the site is in Singapore. Who is this "UK Police bla bla"? They have no jurisdiction here.

Re:WTF? I'm in Finland, the site is in Singapore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075041)

Actually copyright is goverened by a number of international treaties and conventions, which makes it possible to enforce legislation on a cross-national scale.

This has happend before, and will all happen again (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 10 months ago | (#45074721)

The Internet is decentralized. You will now either make DNS redundantly decentralized or die by your foolish decision to have it centralized in the first place.
This is the siths' time for your planet's organic womb to birth a world wide neural network, and we are exceeding efficient at harnessing it.
Do you know any two people who have the same first names? How do you tell them apart? That's the only hint I'll give you filthy disgusting, humans.

When they said all the organics were all full of crap, I thought it was only a euphemism!

Money is behind this (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 10 months ago | (#45074759)

I especially liked the part of the request that asked to redirect the domain to their local corporate sponsors in the content industry. As if commercial seizure of the domain is even appropriate.

Peanut Butter (0)

tomxor (2379126) | about 10 months ago | (#45074771)

DDoS Time, Peanut Butter DDoS Time... Peanut Butter DDoS Peanut Butter DDoS Peanut Butter DDoS with a Zombie Army!

I've used EasyDNS before.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074867)

I've used EasyDNS before and thought it was a decent DNS service. I I find it completely ironic that a few months ago I received a marketing email from them touting how they're not based in the US and therefore immune to draconian privacy invasion laws. This is the exact thing they were advising people to stay away from US services for.

Let's ask ICANN to take down the police website (2)

elloz (3382559) | about 10 months ago | (#45074885)

All for one and one for all. I'm pretty sure those cops are doing something illegal -- they're protecting crooked capitalists after all.

Court order (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 10 months ago | (#45074899)

I think the proper response would be to have an attorney draw up a letter saying "We appreciate your concern, and will comply with all legal demands. We will redirect that domain immediately upon receipt of a copy of the court judgement or order directing such. We await your prompt forwarding of said judgement or order. We have also initiated an inquiry with ICANN regarding the propriety of a third party demanding control of a domain without having obtained it through a valid registration, dispute resolution or court judgement or order.".

The correct reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45074907)

The correct response is "You have not paid the processing fee. This action cannot continue until we receive your $10,000 payment".

And tell everyone whether or not London metropolitan paid.

Good capitalism demands all work performed has a fee for service, according to market demand. And their demands are very big.

This looks fake. (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45075003)

The "police page" at 83.138.166.114 [83.138.166.114] may be fake. That address resolves via reverse DNS to "S82574.clubonside.dk". But "clubonside.dk" isn't in DNS or the .dk registry. It was live in 2006, and was a site for soccer fans, then moved to "clubonside.com", and is now defunct. The IP address is hosted by Rackspace in London.

Also note that on the page, there are no links to any law enforcement organization. All the links are ads for "safe and reliable online content". A domain actually taken over by the Serious Organized Crimes Agency in the UK looks like this. [rnbxclusive.com] No ads, links only to a UK government site.

This looks like some private "IP protection" company impersonating a police agency.

Re:This looks fake. (1)

darrellg1 (969068) | about 10 months ago | (#45075151)

"About the NCA: The NCA is a new crime-fighting agency with national and international reach".
Balls or ego?

Re:This looks fake. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075173)

This is, in fact, real. The City of London Police are a private organisation. Sort of. (It's a bit weird.) They've been hired by the BPI to set up this "task force" - google around and you'll see the news reports on it the first time.

I do not know if there is a legal basis for their request here, but they would probably not appear to have jurisdiction in Canada or Singapore, and there's certainly no court order in place or even a suggestion that they've consulted CPS!

The Serious Organised Crime Agency actually no longer exists - a few days ago, it was subsumed by the new "FBI-style" National Crime Agency, who (unlike SOPA) are not a secret agency. The National Cyber Crime Unit is part of that, however, and so is the Economic Crime command (who are tasked with anti-counterfeiting, though not anti-piracy as far as anyone knows at this time). CEOP (the antipaedo crusaders) are also part of it.

Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45075105)

Who the hell do they think they are? Their laws do not extend into other countries, and if ICANN goes along with it, then they will be subject to a response.

Tell them to stick it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...