The List Of Sites Challenging Domain Seizures

from the did-erik-barnett-lie? dept

Mon, Jun 13th 2011 10:47am — Mike Masnick

Last week, we wrote about how the Assistant Deputy Director of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit of the Department of Homeland Security, Erik Barnett, was in Stockholm talking up the "success" of ICE's legally questionable domain seizure program. One line in his speech specifically caught our attention:

"The notice says that you can challenge the seizure, but no one has yet."

Now, as we stated via our own investigations, we knew this was untrue, and that multiple sites had been trying to challenge the seizures, but had found the process to be incredibly difficult. I had thought that perhaps Barnett was being misleading, but technically truthful, in that perhaps none of the official challenges had been filed yet.

However, a confidential source with knowledge of these things suggested that Barnett is either uninformed or lying in his comments that no one has challenged the seizures. That source has passed along a list that was put together within ICE of the sites that are, in fact, trying to get their domains back. The list is as follows:

rojadirecta.org
rojadirecta.com
Dajaz1.com
onsmash.com
torrent-finder.com

I asked the press office at ICE to explain the discrepancy in Barnett's statements with reality, and the response was that the sites that are trying to get their domains back have filed a different type of challenge than the one Barnett is talking about, and therefore "at this point in time the statement remains accurate." Looking at the details, the sites in question appear to have chosen to focus on the process that is most likely to get their domains returned. The "other process" that Barnett "meant" not only is more convoluted and limited, but runs additional risks for the domain holders. Either way, it seems pretty questionable for ICE to suggest publicly that no one has challenged the seizures, when it's pretty clear that these sites are very much challenging them. Update: I've discussed this with a few folks with knowledge of all this, and they suggest ICE's excuse is hogwash, saying there is only one procedure, and all the sites in question are using it...

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: challenges, dhs, domain seizures, erik barnett, ice

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:03am

Perhaps your informed source could explain how they are trying to reclaim their domains. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them are filing lawsuits in their own countries rather than in the US, or are directly going after the registrars rather than the government.

Rather than speculation,rumors, and attempts to make the government look bad, perhaps you could bring some actual information to the table?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:08am

Re:
...attempts to make the government look bad...

LOL. The gov't doesn't need Mike's help to look bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:10am

Re:
We'll bring some "actual information" to the table once they start seizing the sites based on "Actual information" vs the speculation, rumors, and attempts to prop up dying industries that they are relying on now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FuzzyDuck, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:19am

Re:
> I wouldn't be shocked if some of them are filing lawsuits in their own countries rather than in the US.

Yeah because only US law is valid in the world right?

It would be cool if these sites sued in their own countries and won the right to seize US owned property in compensation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:19am

I asked the press office at ICE to explain the discrepancy in Barnett's statements with reality, and the response was that the sites that are trying to get their domains back have filed a different type of challenge than the one Barnett is talking about, and therefore "at this point in time the statement remains accurate." Looking at the details, the sites in question appear to have chosen to focus on the process that is most likely to get their domains returned. The "other process" that Barnett "meant" not only is more convoluted and limited, but runs additional risks for the domain holders.

Can you explain what process Barnett was referring to, and by contrast, what process those five sites are pursuing? You were quite vague about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:19am

Re: Re:
Not so fast. Ignoring the obviously snarky attitude of the AC, it's a valid point.

It would be nice to have some more information about how these sites are proceeding, how it could possibly not count as challenging the seizure.

Not that this lack of information makes the position of Barnett or the rest of the government agencies involved any better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: Re:
It would be nice to have some more information about how these sites are proceeding, how it could possibly not count as challenging the seizure.

Just got more info on this... look for a post in about an hour...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:27am

Re:
I wouldn't be shocked if some of them are filing lawsuits in their own countries rather than in the US, or are directly going after the registrars rather than the government.

False on both accounts.

Rather than speculation,rumors, and attempts to make the government look bad, perhaps you could bring some actual information to the table?

These aren't speculations and rumors. They are confirmed facts.

Will you admit you were wrong when we post the details of the first lawsuit in about an hour?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FormerAC (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:31am

Re:
Update: I've discussed this with a few folks with knowledge of all this, and they suggest ICE's excuse is hogwash, saying there is only one procedure, and all the sites in question are using it...

The only ones being vague are ICE and DHS. Actually, they aren't being vague, they are lying. But hey, they are the government, and we've always been at war with EastAsia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:35am

This post is way too vague.

And there's a difference between challenging the seizure and trying to get your domain back. A big difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:36am

Re: Re:
Sounds like Mike's got more details forthcoming. I look forward to seeing what he's got.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:38am

Re:
I suspect the easiest way to accuse them of lying was to be vague about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:51am

Two types of challenges can be filed

I asked the press office at ICE to explain the discrepancy in Barnett's statements with reality, and the response was that the sites that are trying to get their domains back have filed a different type of challenge than the one Barnett is talking about, and therefore "at this point in time the statement remains accurate."

Any average asylum inmate can easily explain this. Barnett did not misspeak.

Barnett is talking specifically about the type of challenges that count as having been filed. That's what the seized domain owners are failing to file. Instead the seized domain owners are filing the type of challenge Barnett is not talking about, specifically, challenges that do not count as having been filed.

None of these challenges have any specific type of name or designation. The process for filing a challenge does not allow you to select which type of challenge you wish to file: either
(1) the type that counts as having been filed, or
(2) the type that does not count as having been filed.
If you file a challenge of the 2nd type, it doesn't count and Barnett is still correct and did not misspeak.

Once the seized domain owners actually file the first type of challenge that Barnett is talking about (the ones that count as having been filed) rather than any other type of challenge (the ones which do not count as having been filed) then those challenges will count as having been filed.

It all makes sense.

I hope that cleared it up.

(don't think about it too much or you may end up in an asylum yourself.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CommonSense (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:56am

Re:
Care to explain that big difference, or should I just trust that it exists because some anonymous coward said so???

At least Mike is willing to put his name to his writings and opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
V, 13 Jun 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: Anon Coward
"Rather than speculation,rumors, and attempts to make the government look bad, perhaps you could bring some actual information to the table?"

The government IS bad. Anyone who tells you differently is either working for them, with them or simply hasn't been screwed over by them... yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 12:07pm

Re:
And there's a difference between challenging the seizure and trying to get your domain back. A big difference.

They're challenging the seizure. Stay tuned...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re:
Will you admit you were wrong when we post the details of the first lawsuit in about an hour?

Taking bets, 100:1 if he admits he's wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 12:31pm

details of first court filing
Here are the details of Rojadirecta challenging the seizure:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110613/12021514673/rojadirecta-sues-us-government-homeland-se curity-ice-over-domain-seizure.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 13 Jun 2011 @ 1:06pm

Re: Two types of challenges can be filed
Or, you could just ask the devil if it's ok to sin...

The point is they are going to mishmash the legalsleeze to make it look good for them, no matter what the agreaved party does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

Re: Two types of challenges can be filed
DannyB, do you work for the government? If not, I strongly suggest you apply. I think you're wasting your talents. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 2:21pm

All smoke and mirrors with smoke being the prime ingredient being as it's cheaper than buying mirrors.

When is ICE going to open up a magic act to align it with it's entertainment value?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
So where's you money? I bet 50,000 bitcoins an hour ago, and was proven right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 2:39pm

Re:
It can't - their overlords vetoed it, and told them to 'break the law some more, so we don't have to buy it!'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 2:55pm

Accurate vs. Honest
I was taught that a lie is any thing said or done with the intent to deceive.

His actual words might compute to a certain sort of truth for a given definition of 'challenge', but if he had any knowledge of what was going on, it was a lie.

The only charitable possibility I can imagine is that he is purposely kept in the dark, like an ambassador or a press secretary, for the sake of plausible deniability. - In the which case, he is merely a tool of the real liars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 3:05pm

Re: Re:
torrent-finder.com is now know as google.com :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2011 @ 5:36pm

TVTropes to the rescue!
TVTropes has a term for this.

Jedi Truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 14 Jun 2011 @ 12:25am

Re: TVTropes to the rescue! *Ogod* No!
Damn you, TVTropes!

The last time I was there, it took me THREE DAYS to get away...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CommonSense (profile), 14 Jun 2011 @ 9:10am

Re: Accurate vs. Honest
One thing that you got right for sure, he is a tool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]