Homeland Security Won't Even Admit Whether Or Not It Seized Mooo.com, Taking Down 84,000 Innocent Sites

from the transparency-in-government dept

Thu, Feb 17th 2011 9:45am — Mike Masnick

Yesterday, I wrote about how there were many reports, starting over the weekend, claiming that Homeland Security's inept Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) group had once again screwed up the process of seizing domains. However, this time, the mistake appeared to be on a much larger scale. While some other sites have simply assumed that Homeland Security seized the entire mooo.com domain, thereby publicly accusing 84,000 sites (nearly all of which were perfectly legitimate) of trafficking in child porn, we were at least willing to give Homeland Security the benefit of the doubt and question whether it was really involved.

Given that no one seemed to confirm that Homeland Security was involved, I figured I might as well ask. I sent off a quick email to a press contact at Homeland Security, asking a simple question: did Homeland Security seize -- and then unseize -- the mooo.com domain? It seemed like a simple yes or no question, and given that Homeland Security is a part of the Obama administration, which has promised the utmost transparency, I figured the least it could do was provide that simple answer. Instead, the response I got was:

"I need to refer you to DOJ for a response to your question."

This, of course, is not true. The actions were taken by Homeland Security's ICE group. It was Homeland Security that put out the bragging press release about seizing more domains and putting up their "this site trafficked in child porn" graphics. But it can't even answer a simple yes or no question about a specific domain? That's not transparency. It also seems to suggest quite strongly that DHS and ICE did, in fact, screw up royally here.

I responded to the press contact, and pointed out that there is simply no reason that Homeland Security cannot answer this question, and repeated the question, but I have not heard back. I also sent an email to the Justice Department, and have also received no response.

Lots of folks are pointing out the incredibly serious First Amendment concerns brought out by such a seizure. Of course, we've pointed out such concerns with all of the previous domains seized, and people said they were overblown concerns. I'm somewhat stunned that we still had people defending such seizures without any due process, when 84,000 legitimate sites might have taken down, as a result.

And, once again, if there were actual due process, involving an actual adversarial hearing, moves like this would be avoided. On top of that, if Homeland Security wanted to actually go after child pornographers by tracking them down and arresting them, rather than just seizing domains, mistakes like this would be avoided. Of course, that would involve doing real work. And that's something that Homeland Security apparently isn't interested in, from the special agents who have failed massively in their investigations on these various takedowns all the way to the press spokespeople who can't even be straight with the American public when they make a massive First Amendment-violating mistake.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: domain names, free speech, homeland security, ice, mooo.com, prior restraint, seizures, transparency

141 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

xenomancer (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:24am

The US government is kind of like the vatican: in their warped world admitting a mistake would destroy the power they've amassed over the years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  And our leaders like little boys
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Show me where the bad government touched you.
    
    Hold on, let's go to the airport first....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Daddy the TSA agent told me we were playing a game!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:52am

I'm somewhat stunned that we still had people defending such seizures without any due process, when 84,000 legitimate sites might have taken down, as a result.

Go ahead and be stunned. Actually they took down 1 site. That site had 84,000 subsites, but that isn't really relevant. By that logic, all torrent site owners would need to do is create a bunch of third level entries for blogs talking about flowers or something, attribute them to "anonymous" users, and somehow their sites would be all legal and peachy. Would it be different if it was a single site with 84,000 pages?

As for Homeland Security, who is responsible for them? DoJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  "As for Homeland Security, who is responsible for them? DoJ."
  
  Uh, no they aren't. Completely separate branches of the hierarchy....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BackPackAdam, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  "As for Homeland Security, who is responsible for them? DoJ."
  
  Are you talking about the Department of Homeland Security? Because Janet Napolitano is responsible for them. And then President Obama is responsible for her.
  
  But then, the people of this country are responsible for him, so I guess the collective 'we' are responsible for them?
  
  I think in the end, you are responsible for the Department of Homeland Security.
  
  If you are not talking about DHS, please be more specific so I can help you with that answer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  Ah yes, the world of TAM, where it "isn't really relevant" that 83339 websites get taken down as long as that accomplishes...temporarily hiding a website so you can pretend you are doing something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous a-hole, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  That site had 84,000 subsites, but that isn't really relevant.
  Umm, yea it is. If the owner of a office park is laundering money, you don't get to close the doors of every business in the office park without due process for each business therein.
  That's kind of the whole fucking point. Due process wasn't followed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, funny - if the buildings were to get seized because they are proceeds from crime, the leases on them wouldn't be valid anymore, and yes, the businesses in them could in fact get locked out.
    
    Thanks for playing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChronoFish (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean if the buildings were *found* to be proceeds from a crime - as in through a proper investigation and trial....
      
      The feds wouldn't seize the entire complex because there "might be" a connection. The leases would continue until a court order.
      
      Keep playing.
      
      -CF
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > if the buildings were to get seized because
      > they are proceeds from crime, the leases on
      > them wouldn't be valid anymore
      
      Actually, the leases would still be valid. Go learn some basic landlord/tenant property law and come back when you can discuss this intelligently.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  Go ahead and be stunned. Actually they took down 1 site. That site had 84,000 subsites, but that isn't really relevant. By that logic, all torrent site owners would need to do is create a bunch of third level entries for blogs talking about flowers or something, attribute them to "anonymous" users, and somehow their sites would be all legal and peachy.
  
  Yes, because it's absolutely impossible for DHS to figure out how to just target the illegal sites, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    es, because it's absolutely impossible for DHS to figure out how to just target the illegal sites, huh?
    
    Well, I know you are a smart guy. I know you understand how third level domains work. I know you can understand why this might be a little difficult to accomplish, especially when people tend to use dynamic dns techniques to move from computer to computer, often outside of the country.
    
    But you are smart, you know all that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that excuses homeland how?
      
      If it IS so easy just to move the sites around, then why isn't homeland doing something that might actually work instead of damaging the reputation of 83,999 websites by accident?
      
      Fun fact, even when you target the right site and only the right site, it's still just as easy to slip out from the domain grab.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Which just makes what the government is doing irrelevant. Going after the target sites makes a lot more sense either way, instead of just going after the host and taking down a ton of innocent sites in the process.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      this might be a little difficult to accomplish
      
      If they're policing the internet it's their job to overcome that difficulty. Being given orders by their superiors not to talk to the domain owners and ISPs hinders their investigation. Then adding a seizure notice on the wrong sites causes a liability.
      
      They could have called/emailed/located the owner of mooo.com via WHOIS information and had him assist with investigation. Just taking down the domain name won't stop the child pornographers from moving to another domain name. The strategy of not communicating with anyone besides Verisign has failed on so many levels.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:47am
        
        Speaking of Verisign
        They haven't said a word denouncing the seizures or COICA. A few weeks ago they "won" the contract to run .gov's registry. I guess their attitude is who cares if their .com monopoly fails. Taxpayers will still be paying them somehow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, I know you are a smart guy. I know you understand how third level domains work. I know you can understand why this might be a little difficult to accomplish, especially when people tend to use dynamic dns techniques to move from computer to computer, often outside of the country.
      
      Yeah, it's *****so***** difficult to go to the free DNS provider and say "shut off this subdomain." I mean, it's impossible compared to going to the registrar and saying "shut off this domain." Oh wait, no, it's the same damn thing.
      
      But, even more to the point, DHS would have avoided all of this if it simply filed a lawsuit like it should have in the first place.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, it's *****so***** difficult to go to the free DNS provider and say "shut off this subdomain." I mean, it's impossible compared to going to the registrar and saying "shut off this domain." Oh wait, no, it's the same damn thing.
        
        Well, you see, there you are wrong, it isn't the same thing at all.
        
        What happens if the "freeDNS" provider happens to be actually in the business of selling child porn, or perhaps one of their key staffers is doing it? Before you start laughing, remember EstDomains, EstHost, and all that load of crap? All of that was set up specifically so that they could receive the sort of request you are suggesting and appear to answer it, while isolating their illegal activities from actual law enforcement action.
        
        I do not imply anything for moooo.com or any of it's workers, staff, owners, or anything like that. It's just that we have already seen how the be nice system can be convoluted by people who want to take advantage of it.
        
        It might have been nice to contact them, but it also might have been meaningless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What happens if the "freeDNS" provider happens to be actually in the business of selling child porn, or perhaps one of their key staffers is doing it?"
        
        People are not guilty until proven innocent.
        
        "It might have been nice to contact them, but it also might have been meaningless."
        
        How could they know until they at least contacted them first. It's their job to investigate this stuff first before just randomly taking sites down. Shoot first, ask questions later is dumb.
        
        They could have contacted them first, told them to take down the specific sites in question, subpoenaed the required information, contacted them and asked them for that information, got the information, and continued on with their investigation. If they contact them and the host isn't cooperative is when they should take further action against the host. But don't just assume they won't be cooperative without at least making some effort to contact them.
        
        I understand they're lazy and don't want to do their jobs, because they are very aversive to work, but this is ridiculous. They're getting paid, by taxpayers, to do work and I don't think it's asking too much for us to require of them at least a minimal amount of effort.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We have no simple way to know if mooo.com has been contacted in the past to remove sites. They sure aren't talking about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The government would have likely mentioned if they contacted them, especially give all the negative publicity they are receiving. Whenever the government does something right they tend to make a big deal out of what they did right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but at least you're not denying that they should have been contacted first, which they likely weren't. and seizing a bunch of sites like that should require some due process. What if moo didn't think the sites should be taken down because they thought they weren't violating any laws. Due process is in order, it's for a court (not the enforcement branch of the government) to make that determination.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (also, filing a lawsuit, as MM points out, is often a form of contact that also provides proof of contact. That's what DHS should have done to begin with before taking action, and then they can take further action if the other party doesn't respond).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but at least you're not denying that they should have been contacted first,
        
        Not saying that. I am saying the COULD have been contacted before, they MAY have been contacted before, but is there any reason to contact people commiting crimes ahead of time to see if they can just stop for a while?
        
        What if moo didn't think the sites should be taken down because they thought they weren't violating any laws. Due process is in order
        
        See, your problem is you are replacing the courts with Mooo's judgement. Ice doesn't do the work without a court order, so you are looking at enough probably cause for the judge to sign the warrant. Due process has already started before the takedown occurs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ice doesn't do the work without a court order, so you are looking at enough probably cause for the judge to sign the warrant.
        
        First it has to be "a preponderance of evidence" not "probable cause".
        
        So you are really trying to spin this as "a judge had a preponderance of evidence to shutdown 84,000 sites"?
        
        Really?
        
        How much time was spent looking at all of those 84,000 sites? Seems to me it would take a pretty long time to even look at the landing pages for 84,000 sites.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        o you are really trying to spin this as "a judge had a preponderance of evidence to shutdown 84,000 sites"?
        
        No, I didn't say that at all. Do you insist on putting words in other people's mouths?
        
        They shut down (for a short period of time) a single domain. There was apparently infringing material on that domain. There may be non-infringing material as well, but the domain was showing infringing material. There was (as you say) a preponderance of evidence of something on that one and single unique domain, mooo.com
        
        I don't think anyone really cared if there was 84,000 "sites" or 84,000 "pages" or 84,000 "blog entries". There is only one domain. The rest is "content".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also I want to know what kind of f'cking law is that? that is only selectively enforced.
        
        Is those laws only for people who can't defend themselves, not for big companies and important people?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think anyone really cared if there was 84,000 "sites" or 84,000 "pages" or 84,000 "blog entries". There is only one domain. The rest is "content".
        
        And when people say the enforcement agencies and justice are incompetent to judge technology people say they are over reacting.
        
        That right there just proves their incompetency and the risks involved with such strong measures on the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you would not object to all Blogspot-hosted or Wordpress-hosted blogs being shut down because 1 is doing something illegal?
        
        Telling, TAM.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "but is there any reason to contact people commiting crimes"
        
        A: Just because someone that the site hosts maybe committing crimes does not mean that they are committing crimes.
        
        B: Yes, they have a right to face their accuser and to defend themselves in court, which requires them to be contacted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A. There were not hosting. They were only offering DNS services (and a third level domain name), which actually pointed to remote servers. mooo.com was not the host, only a dns provider.
        
        B. Yes, I agree - but that doesn't stop the seizures. They can still have a day in court, but there is no reason to tolerate and permit clearly illegal activity to continue without stopping. Otherwise, all those people sitting in jail waiting for trials should all be released. They haven't had a day in court yet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 3:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well please seize the domains for Facebook, Craiglist, Amazon, Yellow Pages, Google, Bing, Yahoo and others because they all are instrumental to crimes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So...since it may not work, it's impossible and should just be skipped over.
        
        Brilliant TAM logic, as always.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Department of Homeland Security, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This guy is a child molester!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quick, put a boot on his car so he can't go anywhere. Remember to ignore the fact that he can just walk or get another car, and for god's sake don't tell him why he has a boot on his car. After that we can announce the problem is solved and close the case (or at least ignore it for half a year).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What happens when all those pedo guys go more underground and start using heavy encryption?
        
        Damn one could just post pedo material on Youtube using steganography or one could use and automated tool to create a series of posts in every forum(i.e. Twitter, Flickr, Gov domains and so forth) to use special characters to encode image data in plain text and use a mapping archive to retrieve that data, voila you have child pornography in plain sight.
        
        Basically by shining light at them and doing nothing is as good as looking to the other way, that works well when you don't really want to do any work or don't know how to deal with something, but really doesn't do anything for the abused children and it almost guarantee that it will be harder in the future to find those people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What happens if ... blah blah blah...
        
        Heh, and so now you're just making crap up. There's no indication that mooo was doing any of that. Typical copyright supporter: If the facts don't support your position, just make some up!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But, even more to the point, DHS would have avoided all of this if it simply filed a lawsuit like it should have in the first place."
        
        Governments are too blunt an instrument to stop crime. Having the government stop crime is like trying to carve out one of Michelangelo's sculptures with a wrecking ball. Not only will it not accomplish the intended task, it will destroy everything else in its path.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, you're saying our government isn't smart?
      
      Finally, we can agree on something!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I know you are a smart guy and understand that what they did acomplish 2 very real things:
      
      a) It alerted those predators that someone was looking at them, which will make them scramble to more secure locations.
      
      b) Made the appearance of doing something be more important then doing something, just looking away why those children are still being forced into sex is like preaching about how bad it is while you turn your face to another place and don't look at it happening right at your side.
      
      I can understand they seizing such a site after they have identified and apprehended those people, then they would have done a great job, not shooting light just to see the creatures scatter in every direction.
      
      Also this pedo thing needs strong controls and more transparency, many people are being accused of pedo behavior when they should not and it is being used like some sort of magic wand to pass legislation that erodes civil liberties that cost blood to gain.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Governments are too blunt an instrument to figure out anything specific. They can only comprehend vague generalities and even then they often tend to screw those up too. Or, by the time it has figured out anything specific it's outdated and has lost its relevance decades ago.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alex (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Uh, Yes, actually. mooo.com is controlled by the TLDs, but x.mooo.com is controlled by mooo.com. So, to take down x.mooo.com, they would need to access and modify servers beloning to mooo.com, rather than asking Verisign to modify mooo.com in their .com servers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, to take down x.mooo.com, they would need to access and modify servers beloning to mooo.com
      
      No, they just need to get mooo.com to modify x.mooo.com in their mooo.com DNS servers. And mooo wasn't hosting the sites, either.
      
      rather than asking Verisign to modify mooo.com in their .com servers.
      
      They could have done the exact same thing with mooo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  If they were actually targeting mooo.com, it would not be back up. They were targeting one or more of the sub-domains. Unless 850 of them were child porn sites, less than 1% of the sites they took down were their target.
  
  I made this point yesterday. If this had been a drug bust in an apartment building, they had a target of one or two apartments. To get that target, they arrested everyone in the building - posted notices on their doors, answering machines, and voicemails that they had been arrested, and then released everyone except the drug dealers (actually, they may have let the dealers go too) several days later. The damage they have done to innocent people and businesses is probably pretty bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    To get that target, they arrested everyone in the building - posted notices on their doors, answering machines, and voicemails that they had been arrested, and then released everyone except the drug dealers (actually, they may have let the dealers go too) several days later.
    
    So? The police can't know for sure who's innocent and who's guilty beforehand. That's what trials are for. What you describe is just the way the system works.
    
    The damage they have done to innocent people and businesses is probably pretty bad.
    
    That's just the price you pay for a safe society. Too boo-hoo bad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 3:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So? The police can't know for sure who's innocent and who's guilty beforehand. That's what trials are for. What you describe is just the way the system works.
      
      After disrupting 84,000 websites I doubt they know anything or are doing their job with due diligence.
      
      This is not a small mistake.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you're happy that no pedophiles were harmed in this operation. You're actually pleased that nothing was achieved and all the pedophiles using any of those sites are unharmed and still free. You support pretend actions that actually protect child-molesters?
      
      Yes, apparently he's pleased that it failed to stop a single pedophile and failed to protect a single child.
      
      Now why would you be glad about that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JH, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  Actually they took down 1 site. That site had 84,000 subsites, but that isn't really relevant.
  
  So you'd have no problem if ICE seized the hotmail.com domain taking down your anonymousCoward@hotmail.com account because someone, somewhere was using hotmail to send files covered by copyright?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    If hotmail is unable to control it's users, I would rather my mail is down than have that sort of thing going on. When I weigh my needs against the distribution of child porn, I think I can wait a little while for my mail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But it wouldn't be just "down". Hotmail would be forced to reply to every incoming message stating your email has been seized due to a child pornography trafficking investigation. Then after they're done and your service is restored there would be no explanation posted anywhere.
      
      If you believe this is the right way to go about things, why don't you try setting a vacation message like that on your email account now? It couldn't do any harm to you right? There's no such thing as vigilantes right? Right???
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You sir are an idiot!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jackwagon (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and put a responder on your email that said you were supporting child porn when someone contacted you? Still ok with it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChronoFish (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You realize that this the case today. Hotmail has no control over its users for such uses.
      
      Every web host, every email provider, every ISP, every search engine is guilty by association (based on your "control" statement).
      
      There is no ability to "control" how users use an open system. There is no safe place on the Internet.
      
      What you're saying is that you're okay with dismantling the Internet because bad people use it.
      
      If that is the case, and you are okay with having your email/Internet cut off until it can be made safe and crime-free, then in all honestly you should, based on your stated principle, give it up.
      
      -CF
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But you see, that is why it is all a BS piece of mental bubble gum, and nothing more.
        
        Emails in and of themselves aren't going to get anyone shut down, now are they?
        
        If I started to see hotmail providing dynamic dns and freebie third level domains with instant activation and no checking of sites, I would very likely not use it for email, because it would be risky.
        
        What you (and the original poster) are doing is trying to set up a situation that is not permitted under law. If you can come with with an example that would pass legal muster, we can discuss. But wandering off on a parade of bizarre absolutes and impossible circumstances isn't going to go very far.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They do. IT's called Windows Live!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you access Hotmail frequently to keep your account alive?
        
        Because if you don't, one could just go there and recreate that account and start using it as it was you.
        
        Is your secret question made up of a sixteen or larger string of characters, because if it is not people may get in there, is your secondary email account active? Can I recreate that account and ask another password with it?
        
        Lets hack your email and start using it to do bad things and see you go down for it, shall we?
        
        That is how I know you are full of s.
        
        Security experts recently got hacked and if even they couldn't fallow security simple rules, I doubt you can and will be a easier target.
        
        Do your company have a website? does it have a public space?
        I can use that to do illegal stuff, I just need to encode hardcore pr0n into text or whitespaces and keep posting that data there and each peace will point to the next and it would be invisible to most people but your company will be part of a crime in no time.
        
        And you want hardcore laws to deal with that?
        
        LoL
        
        You will receive in no time the right punishment, this will come back and bite you in the ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's kind of funny how you run away from your own arguments so quickly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If I started to see hotmail providing dynamic dns and freebie third level domains with instant activation and no checking of sites, I would very likely not use it for email, because it would be risky."
        
        Only because the legal system is broken.
        
        "What you (and the original poster) are doing is trying to set up a situation that is not permitted under law."
        
        No, "providing dynamic dns and freebie third level domains with instant activation and no checking of sites" is permitted by law. and it should be.
        
        Your argument is like saying that because people can use the mail delivery system for illegal purposes, the USPS should open up and inspect all packages before delivering. Ridiculous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and the USPS should also do a background check on everyone that wants to deliver mail as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris in Utah (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        P.S. they already do. Anything over 3lbs SS of the recipient.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They do? Odd, they didn't when we were sending out Christmas gifts. Must be a /really/ new thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, how do you know that the sites weren't checked. The fact that they can't immediately track infringing content upon arrival doesn't mean there is no tracking of sites and it doesn't mean that they haven't been removing infringing material upon request.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Emails in and of themselves aren't going to get anyone shut down, now are they?
        
        Really? Why not?
        
        If I started to see hotmail providing dynamic dns and freebie third level domains with instant activation and no checking of sites, I would very likely not use it for email, because it would be risky.
        
        So what does your personal ignorance have to do with anything?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you have no problems if people took away your bank account because your bank was involved with some pedo people?
      
      Some blogs are how people make money today, in effect the government has taken away their bank accounts and means to make a living.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > I would rather my mail is down than have
      > that sort of thing going on.
      
      Well, that's the difference between you and rational people. We don't much care for having our businesses and lives disrupted merely because of a civil dispute between people we don't know and couldn't care less about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If hotmail is unable to control it's users, I would rather my mail is down than have that sort of thing going on.
      
      Hotmail IS unable to control it's users. (And has often been used for illegal purposes). In fact, the whole internet in general has been used for illegal purposes. I suspect the internet itself is what you would really like to see shut down.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So why support an action that did nothing to stop pedophilia?
      
      Why are you being duplicitous about this by pretending to care while actively supporting and defending actions that are designed not to stop pedophiles, but to actuall hide them better?
      
      When you defend pedophiles raping children because it helps you defend copyright then you are a sick and warped individual that needs to be taken out of society.
      
      How twisted can you get?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  Oh wait...
  
  Weren't you one of the people saying that this latest batch of seizures is a new operation about child pornography and not simply a renaming of the old operation to make it more difficult for people to criticize?
  
  When did torrent sites end up part of this discussion? I though they were going after child pornography sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Didn't you know all torrent sites, fake clothing, and gray market drug sites are now going to be associated with kiddie porn. It make it an easy sell.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J.J. (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  Wow TAM ...
  You are truly so far bent that the air probably comes out crooked when you breathe.
  
  You should really seek professional help, soon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  I think somewhere there's a picture of a young girl or boy in a bathtub on the internet! Some sicko will say it's an innocent picture of their kid, but we know better. Better shut down the whole internet and round everyone up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or just pretend to take it down and get TAM to go round defending that. Is this what we're dealing with?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re:
  > As for Homeland Security, who is responsible
  > for them? DoJ.
  
  Wrong. Homeland Security is an entirely separate, independent, and co-equal cabinet-level department. It does not fall under DoJ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Trying to educate TAM is like trying to educate that pebble over there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's an insult to the pebble. Now apologize.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  By your logic everyone is fair game now.
  
  Google, Yahoo, Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Amazon, Craiglist and so forth because they all are material to providing some kind of support for illegal activities :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Logic? Where?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:20pm
  
  Re:
  Go ahead and be stunned. Actually they took down 1 site. That site had 84,000 subsites...
  
  In that case then, "mooo" is really just a "subsite" off "com". So, what they really should have done is shut down the "com" domain, eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:53am

Homeland Security..
is now actually the enforcement department of the entertainment industry. they do not care one bit about such silly things as the Constitution or rules of law. they see no reason to bother with due process; who is going to stop them anyway? anyone who tries gets a trip to Gitmo, one way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:56am

Damned if you do, ...
(IANAL) They can't answer yes, even if they did it. Doing so is an admission, admissible in court, of libel. Thus, they're referring you to their lawyers (DOJ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:40am
  
  Re: Damned if you do, ...
  Should you really use the term IAnal when talking about kiddie porn?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:00am

Wildcard setup is the smoking gun
If you point a non-seized, even completely made up domain name to "74.81.170.110" with your HOSTS file, it will show a copyright warning. When you point mooo.com to that IP, it will show a child pornography warning instead. Here are the relevant lines to add to HOSTS:

74.81.170.110 reallyfakehostname111.com
74.81.170.110 mooo.com

See the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChronoFish (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: Wildcard setup is the smoking gun
  Wow
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:06am

You are in big trouble now...
Mike, by asking apparently hard questions you have probably gotten yourself in big trouble. If you hear screeching tires outside your home or office, look out the window and see if there are big, black SUVs with tinted windows. Also look up to see if there are any black helicopters. You won't hear them as they will be in stealth mode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: You are in big trouble now...
  Nah, they don't do that anymore. They know it backfires, creates martyrs and public sympathy etc. etc.
  
  They just pay TAM to talk bollocks instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:07am

Mike ... File an FOIA ...
It might be fun, we could have a running bet on how long it takes to get a response from the FOIA. See if Karl would be interested in filing it, he seems to like the whole legal arena recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:14am

Yeah, I am a little at a loss here. If you follow their logic then it's long overdue to seize the whole Internet thingy. I heard there are some very illegal sites out there...

Heck, they should also seize some cities, no, wait, some countries. I know for sure there are some bad people out there doing some bad things to children...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  "Heck, they should also seize some cities, no, wait, some countries. I know for sure there are some bad people out there doing some bad things to children..."
  
  Well, yeah, but do they have oil?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    They are using the oil for lube with the children?
    
    What's wrong with you DH?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My bad. Played football as a kid and now I have head trauma.
      
      I'll be useless when our toasters rise up against us....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well geez, *I* think that what Homeland is doing is right!
      
      Except . . . they should be more green. Are they simply discarding those snake husks after extracting the oil for use as lubrication on our children? They could be making condoms out them, (also to use on our children)!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    C'mon, you should know better, that it is not the authorized version to be released to the public, you know damn well that the party line is "Think about the children"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Publius, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:15am

A disfunctional cycle
Let me see if I can pull out the old magic 8-ball on this scenario.

1. Gov't engages in potentially corrupt, tyrannical, or unconstitutional activity.
2. Gov't lies, denies, obfuscates and delays any details of their involvement.
3. Gov't employee gets tired of working inept liars, and potential tyrants, leaks details of gov't involvment in the activity.
4. Gov't arrests employee. Promises reforms to inept activities, and better "protections" for whistleblowers.
5. Gov't argues that the activity was done, and the employee arrested to protect the integrity of the law, and the gov't right to keep secrets for: Artists and Inventors/National Security/The Children.
6. If there is continued disatisfaction from rightfully concerned citizens, the activity is sent to a Blue Ribbon Panel, where reccomendations will be made, but no action taken, unless it increases gov't power. This panel will include memebers of both parties, who despite any past rhetoric, realizes and benefits from "gov't in our lives".
7. All is quiet until the next activity.

If I weren't so cynical, this would be a cycle worthy of grief and mourning. Instead it gets a sad name, like "politics as usual", in order to numb our wounded souls.

What makes it worse IMO, is that this is a road to Perdition built one pebble at a time by people with mostly good intentions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re: A disfunctional cycle
  You forgot:
  
  8. The tinfoil hatters make up 7 point lists to try to explain every government action and inaction as an affront to their personal freedoms.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
    You forgot:
    
    government action and inaction is typically an affront to personal freedoms.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe Publius, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
      The tinfoil hatters make up 7 point lists to try to explain every government action and inaction as an affront to their personal freedoms.
      
      Actually, I'm pretty consistent there. I find government inaction as beneficial to personal freedoms. It means that some actual thought or debate might be occuring.
      
      The past 10 years are a good example that most restrictions to freedom, whether they succeed or not, are rapid responses to moral panics (Terrorism! Pirates! Violent Video Games!), not careful, thoughtful reactions, where options are seen in the light of real risks, or possible alternatives.
      
      Some actions, like the PATRIOT Act I even understood in the beginning, if for nothing other than this response was to a real event. But it's been 10 years now, and not only is it likely to be renewed dispite no real insight into its effectiveness, the original rationale has become a moral panic, essentially a springboard for more intrusions, like the TSA's "detailed scan or grope" process at airports. At the time nobody thought about the implications, and at this point they still aren't, and that creates an inertia that's poisonous to the liberties the US aspired to build itself on.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        Actually, I'm pretty consistent there. I find government inaction as beneficial to personal freedoms. It means that some actual thought or debate might be occuring.
        
        Inaction is good for personal freedoms as long as the inaction doesn't lead to others infringing into your personal freedoms. Inaction is a sign of tolerance, tolerance tends to lead to people pushing the boundries, and when the pushback happens, it is usually appears strong and is often resented.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        If I was making my living from a blog selling my stories and some legal merch and it got seized you damn well bet I would resent it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        I also resent the fact that it is possible to do very fine tunned targeting of those things and they are not done, there is no excuse to take down and entire platform, because of a few bad players is like closing the roads because people are speeding.
        
        This is also a true first emendement issue, as they took down a lot of protected speech.
        
        So you keep up with your FUD and drinking that kool-aid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        Commercial speech that infringes copyright or trademark doesn't get the same 1st amendment protections as other speech. In fact, any illegal speech (aka unprotected speech) is outside the scope of the 1st amendment and therefore not covered.
        
        If you are going to pull out the "first emendement", you may want to understand all of it's legal implications (and heck, learn to spell it).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        So the press is not protected? Blogs are not protected?
        
        Show us where in the constitution it says those are not protected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        Blogs and the press are protected speech and you know it so your FUD is just the BS dripping out of your mouth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        Why is section 230 being violated?
        
        http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230
        
        Why is First Amendment being violated?
        Why is the law being selectively applied?
        Why are we warning predators to the presence of law enforcement in the vicinities of their operations?
        Why is the police not seizing the criminals first and letting them escape? and consequently teaching them to be better criminals.
        
        And there are more questions, keep up the f'cking FUD because your rhetoric is only that FUD to confuse those issues, because no reasonable human being would make snark remarks about that or consider them something lesser.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        Why is the police not seizing the criminals first BUT letting them escape? and consequently teaching them to be better criminals
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        > In fact, any illegal speech (aka unprotected
        > speech) is outside the scope of the 1st amendment
        
        So you're saying unprotected speech is not protected?
        
        Brilliant!
        
        What you failed to note is that only obscenity and incitement to imminent violence falls outside the scope of the 1st Amendment, neither of which apply to copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        Do you realize how stupid you're making yourself look? According to you, the government can simply pass a law declaring a type of speech illegal. Then that speech will no longer have first amendment protections...because the first amendment doesn't protect illegal speech, according to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris in Utah (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        I really need to bring this up
        
        To point out " ccording to you, the government can simply pass a law declaring a type of speech illegal.:"
        
        Look up George Carlin 7 dirty words and tell us its not happening already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A disfunctional cycle
        EICAR
        
        X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
        
        I hope you are using Windows with some antivirus because that string right there will just make them go nutts LoL
        
        I hope nobody ever Metasploit your ass and put a lot of kiddy pr0n in there and then call the popos to take you down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:16am

Call FreeDNS/Socketfire
Mike, you said yesterday you couldn't get a response from the owner of mooo.com by email. I found their phone number with a 916 area code in mooo.com's WHOIS information and at their parent company's website socketfire.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dc s, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am

mooo
ive never heard of mooo.com so your article needed to explain what it is and how come there are 84k sites to do with it..is it a blog service like blogger.com ?, anyway any site showing child porn should be taken offline [--cb1 8ap--]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:21am

"if Homeland Security wanted to actually go after child pornographers by tracking them down and arresting them, rather than just seizing domains"

Exactly, seizing a bunch of arbitrarily unrelated domains isn't going to do anything to stop them whatsoever. Go after them, prosecute them, and put them in jail. IOW, do your job you lazy retards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Now that was just mean.
  In the course of my life I have been around many people that were "handicapped" in such a way as to be called retards.
  
  All of them exhibited energy levels exponentially higher than what is normally observed in government workers. Associating retards with Homeland Security is just being mean to retards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:22am
    
    Re: Now that was just mean.
    I'm sorry, I sincerely apologize. My mistake.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  One also has to question why are they alerting child molesters that they are being observed.
  
  That is the best early warning system for criminals ever devised LoL
  
  Those people have all the incentives in the world to be tech savy and adopt ever more complex systems to evade the law.
  
  This ad show what they are doing it was done for Europe but it is valid for the U.S. too.
  
  Cleanternet - for a cleaner and safer Internet - cleanternet.org
  
  The government basically is using the prove and tested practice of ignoring the problem and looking away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't forget the sick copyright morons who are happy for pedophilia to continue so long as their little copyright tantrum is solved.
    
    Sickening.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:05am

Intentional?
I theorize it was an intentional effort to make a visible "effort" to take down sites.

It's not like this was just a typo, this went through multiple individuals.

It's also a year before elections. Now is great time to step up activities so someone can run next year for senate/congress or sit in front of a congressional hearing for an appointment and say "we made a huge effort that you all saw".

Same way DA's all over the country start going after high school students with a tiny age difference and charge them as child molesters so that they can say they were "cracking down".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:24am

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN!!!!!
When you need help in DC, call your Congressman.

Your elected representatives can get answers out of DoJ when you can't.

Ask your Congressman if DoJ is covering up a big mistake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dan, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am

DHS
ICANN is the governing body of internet domains. They are an international organization that controls the use of domain names. There are organizations below them for specific regions, but AFAIK, neither DHS nor DOJ has authority over them. Unless they are hosted in the US and they have applied for the appropriate search warrants and it is within the U.S. only then would they have the permissions to seize authority over these domains.
over reach is all I can say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
erin, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:10pm

of course not.. that would require them to admit that even suspected child pornographers still deserve the Constitution.. and nobody wants to be the one that brings up that suspects still have rights...

... or that someone should probably do a little investigation first. What a mess.

using "we're protecting children" is how the DOJ is going to shove ridiculous stuff like this at us... it's vile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:19pm

what if I had my general contracting business hosted at that domain and the these pro's put up a banner stating I was taking part in child porn distribution? Is any court willing to assess the possible damages to loss of business and, more importantly, personal reputations?

A hundred class action lawyers pants just suddenly got tighter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re:
  I was wondering if anyone knows how much each site can sue DOJ, HomeSec, and ICE for? Because with 84,000 unique sites at even a small amount like $100,000 USD per site, that is billions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Overcast (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I was wondering if anyone knows how much each site can sue DOJ, HomeSec, and ICE for? Because with 84,000 unique sites at even a small amount like $100,000 USD per site, that is billions.
    
    Indeed... the sad part is - who pays for it in the end?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick Advocates Child Pornography?, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm

One bad apple spoils the bunch
Casualties in war are inevitable, this is a war after all. Maybe these 84,000 "innocent sites" shouldn't be doing business with an entity that supports the distribution and proliferation of child pornography. Maybe mooo.com should have set their s#*t up properly and this might not have happened. This is what happens when the DMCA safe harbors are abused, and nothing is ever anyones fault.

You'd think everyone, including Mike Masnick, would be glad that a child pornography site was taken down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adrian Lopez, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
  "Maybe mooo.com should have set their s#*t up properly and this might not have happened."
  
  You might be singing a different tune if you were the one at risk of being held responsible for your users actions. Can you imagine if the same standard were applied to, say, Gmail whenever somebody used Gmail to break the law?
  
  PS - You're an idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
  This is what happens when the DMCA safe harbors are abused, and nothing is ever anyones fault.
  
  Way to miss the point of the safe harbors. The whole point is the fault goes exactly where it should go, the person committing the crime.
  
  Then again, as has been mentioned here already, nowadays shutting up the free and innocent speech of tens-of thousands, is seen as a lot easier than actually seeking out the guilty party. And of course those innocent people were just asking for it, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
  You'd think everyone, including Mike Masnick, would be glad that a child pornography site was taken down...
  
  Way to play the emotional card from the bottom of the deck, there - props.
  
  But, even though child pornography is disgusting and needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent - it STILL needs to be done within the boundaries of the law. Period. No exceptions.
  
  Just because DHS/ICE is targeting child porn (or anything for that matter) does not give them a free pass to side step the restraints placed on them. Those restraints are there for good reasons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
  Oh look, AJ has returned to hiding.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 5:22pm
    
    Re: Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
    I doubt it's AJ. He never censored his swear words like the gentleman above.
    
    Besides, I think AJ is still too butt-hurt from the reaming he received over the last few days in the comments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 1:20am
  
  Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
  Casualties in war are inevitable,...blah blah blah...
  
  Almost sounds like we have an ICE agent in our midst.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: One bad apple spoils the bunch
  Here we go again, the PEDOPHILE DEFENDERS lying that a site was taken down when it was actually just hidden from view....... as they really wanted.
  
  Disgusting. New levels of depravity here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:59pm

"Of course, that would involve doing real work. And that's something that Homeland Security apparently isn't interested in."

Dust off those Cheetos fingers, Mike. You sure complain a big game, but I don't see you doing anything to stop the problem their attacking. Who cares if they screwed up? Shit happens all the time, technology is not perfect - you out of anyone should understand that fact. But sit back in your ivory tower blog and cast judgments down on your subjects - god knows this community can't stand a dissenting opinion.

OMG the gov't screwed up - is that news for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re:
  "but I don't see you doing anything to stop the problem their attacking."
  
  Truth be told its sad and all, but I don't think everyone can solve every problem. This is a site about IP, techno foul ups, the content industry. If you want to find an audience that cares about this subject go to one of the "help the exploited children" sites.
  
  If you are looking to SEO this site up with k1dd!e pr0n searches feel free to keep commenting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re:
  > I don't see you doing anything to stop
  > the problem their attacking.
  
  WTF?!?! Since when did Masnick become a law enforcement officer who even has the *ability* to do anything to stop the problem of child porn?
  
  You make zero sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 5:28pm
  
  Re:
  So when the local cops in Seattle paralyzed a guy when they mistook him for their suspect, it isn't their fault because "Who cares if they screwed up? Shit happens all the time"?
  
  I care when law enforcement screws up.
  
  Understandable mistakes are one thing, purposefully ignoring the checks and balances built into our system to prevent abuse and then fucking up royally is entirely different.
  
  If you don't give a shit about abuse of power and ignoring due process, you should move to a country that agrees with you, like Russia. "Shit happens" over there all the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:09pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning

"From China's 3rd century BC Qin Dynasty to the present day, the burning of books has a long history as a tool wielded by authorities both secular and religious, in efforts to suppress dissenting or heretical views that are perceived as posing a threat to the prevailing order."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian Lopez, 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:28pm

Domain Name Seizures and the Limits of Civil Forfeiture:

http://larrydownes.com/domain-name-seizures-and-the-limits-of-civil-forfeiture/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opit (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:59pm

Re : Dysfunctional Cycle
"The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions"

I recall the Bu$h/Cheney maladministration well. A favourite and comprehensive tactic was installing as administrators people with a religious agenda who persecuted whistleblowers and systematically destroyed any remnant of functioning bureaucracy by overloading staff with futile and contradictory makework and legislation : especially as in regards to environmental protection and infrastructure maintenance...and 'Security'. That's the catchword for Operation Clusterfuck...Father...oops...Homeland Insecurity.
Check out Levees.org, born of outrage over the treatment of people in NOLA by denying access to a navy hospital ship, shootings by private contractors, defective water pumps and neglected levees...which require constant maintenance as they sink in mud...dredging of the ship channel which had gone on for decades.

Crediting people with good intentions is just as silly as saying GWB - survivor of flying a widowmaker jet fighter - is stupid, 128 IQ and all.

These are'facts not in evidence' : excuses promoting malice as stupidity. 'Great job, Brownie !'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eejit (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:15pm

IS it wrong...
When I imagine the American flag burning, whilst being replaced with the Iranian one? Or is it just apropos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]