VeriSign Seeks Greater Power To Help Law Enforcement Around The Globe Censor Websites They Don't Like

from the this-is-a-problem dept

Wed, Oct 12th 2011 1:13pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed in the past how VeriSign helped make it easy for ICE to seize domain names that use the .com and .net domain names. And now it looks like the company would like to expand those censorship-helping powers to seize domain names of websites at the request of law enforcement around the globe, even without a trial or any sort of due process. The company claims it gets lots of requests from non-US law enforcement for such things. Of course, the proper response is that VeriSign should tell them to pound sand. Instead it's seeking broad powers to help governments censor websites. Scary stuff. Even worse, the company seems to be burying this request in a larger request to be able to take down "malicious" sites, such as those that are spewing malware. That makes it more likely that these powers will be granted. Once again, a reminder that when you have a few private intermediaries who act as gatekeepers, it only serves to enable censorship. Seems like it's time to route around such central gatekeepers.

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: censorship, centralized control, domain names, seizures
Companies: verisign

32 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 12:50pm

"Seems like it's time to route around such central gatekeepers."

May we live in interesting times ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: _sigh_
  Let's keep ol' curses out of this, mm'kay?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cloksin (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re: _sigh_
    So lets route around them, and stop using sites that use verisign. Tell the sites we don't like the practices of verisign and until they stop using verisign, we're going to stop using them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Dan (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: _sigh_
      You mean all sites ending in ".com" and ".net"? Time to start protesting Techdirt! The time has finally come!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: _sigh_
        nah, that's for other people. Don't expect Masnick to put his money where his mouth is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: _sigh_
      Not trying to be difficult, but how do you convince enough people to complain about Verisign to sites? I can't imagine enough people care enough to bother complaining about Verisign much less threaten to stop using their favorite site over it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:31pm

Wherever there is censorship, it is a sign that speech is serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:35pm

*whips out a crystal ball*
Ah hello Verisign... you've come to see your future haven't you.... please sit down...
ommmmm
I see many, masked people visiting you soon.
They will bring into the light all of your misdeeds.
All because you sold out peoples rights.
I see your servers bursting into flames, and your certs ending up revoked.

It might not be the 5th of November... but I bet they might make an exception for you.

Expect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:40pm

As opposed to the unknown gatekeepers running alternate DNS systems. Yeah... I feel safe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  sadly verisign has been a laughing stock for sometime now after they sold most of it to Symantec.
  They were always easy to spoof
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  As opposed to the unknown gatekeepers running alternate DNS systems. Yeah... I feel safe!
  
  Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris, 13 Oct 2011 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe, except that nobody actually believes that. How many completely government-less communities are there in the world?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah. Best to stay in the house with the kidnapper who routinely bends me over and probes my tailpipe, because you never know what might happen if I try to escape to the house next door to call for help.
  
  Bring on the butt-bangin'!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Is that how VeriSign was supposed to tell them to pound sand?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:03pm
  
  Re:
  NameCoin the DNS run by no one used by millions :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:13pm

Let's hope "ICANN's board of directors" decides correctly!
"a Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) document filed today with ICANN. The RSEP is currently the primary mechanism that registries employ when they want to make significant changes to their contracts with ICANN.
...
But ICANN's board of directors would have the make the ultimate decision whether to approve the anti-abuse policy and the malware-scanning service."

Real story here is that we're now subject to ICANN! Yet another unaccountable /international/ corporation. So tell me, Mike, how do you propose to get rid of ICANN? You CAN'T just "route around" it, silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re: Let's hope "ICANN's board of directors" decides correctly!
  Your dermis is showing! I mean, your ignorance is showing!
  
  Seriously, do you even understand how the interwebs work?
  
  I'll explain it: ICANN owns the patent on naming 'tube stops' as well as on maps/directions for navigating the tubes.
  
  But, it's not like nobody else can make a map, or name a place.
  
  Anyhow, I amazed you managed to navigate the tubes and find this place! Or, are you lost and unable to find your way to anywhere else?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 12 Oct 2011 @ 3:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Let's hope "ICANN's board of directors" decides correctly!
    @ "Lobo Santo": You're the master of irrelevant contradiction. Soon as anyone criticizes Mike, you jump in with some random nonsense and vituperation.
    
    You wrote: "ICANN owns the patent on naming 'tube stops'"
    
    So tell me exactly how to "route around" ICANN. Show me where it's been done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2011 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: Let's hope "ICANN's board of directors" decides correctly!
  like I said, only fools trusted ICANN in the first place. Its used like Microsoft, people use it for convenience since they are the biggest, but nobody ever liked them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:27pm

It seems to me the purpose of this move is to legitimize the recent practice of taking down websites based on nothing more than US government claims of infringement. As such, I suspect the Obama administration is ultimately the one behind this proposal. This claim is supported not only by recent domain seizures but also by numerous other examples of the Obama administration bending over backwards to satisfy the whims of its entertainment industry contributors.

The government's reasoning must be that as long as it's a private organization taking down websites it will not itself be held responsible for improper takedowns, nor will it have to justify such takedowns to any judge. As such, this constitutes the greatest threat to freedom the Internet has ever faced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re:
  This claim is supported not only by recent domain seizures but also by numerous other examples of the Obama administration bending over backwards to satisfy the whims of its entertainment industry contributors.
  
  For the sake of accuracy, here are the top ten contributors to Obama through the last election cycle. (through PAC's, employees, officers and immediate families). Note that tech giants Google and Microsoft are #4 and 5. Only Time Warner is in the top ten and its business interests are far broader than just Warner Bros. (ie TW Cable, etc) Grouped by industry, Computer/Internet gave slightly more than Motion Picture/TV/Music. So in anticipation of the usual cries that decisions are unduly influenced by a larger contributor, I point this out. (all from Opensecrets.org). Note also that higher education are the biggest contributors who generally are more aligned with the computer/internet industry.
  
  University of California $1,648,685
  Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
  Harvard University $878,164
  Microsoft Corp $852,167
  Google Inc $814,540
  JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
  Citigroup Inc $736,771
  Time Warner $624,618
  Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
  Stanford University $595,716
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Silly facts getting in the way of Techdirt's pirate propaganda again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 7:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Funny how your list excludes the approximately 1.3 million dollars David Geffen raised for him? How many other such contributions have you excluded? Also, how do you explain Obama's appointments of numerous people friendly to the entertainment industry and hostile to opposing interests?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2011 @ 4:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny how your list excludes the approximately 1.3 million dollars David Geffen raised for him? How many other such contributions have you excluded?
      
      I went to Opensecrets.org and cited the source here. You have a citation to offer along with your accusation?
      
      Also, how do you explain Obama's appointments of numerous people friendly to the entertainment industry and hostile to opposing interests?
      
      You aren't serios are you? The administration is lousy with Googlers:
      
      http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/technology/obama_google.fortune/
      
      http://bits.blogs.n ytimes.com/2009/05/29/googles-top-policy-exec-to-join-obama-administration/
      
      http://www.internetev olution.com/author.asp?section_id=851&doc_id=194575
      
      http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfident ial/2010/04/27/another-ex-googler-in-obama-administration-buzz-ted-by-google/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2011 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I went to Opensecrets.org and cited the source here. You have a citation to offer along with your accusation?"
        
        Yes: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253124,00.html
        
        "You aren't serios are you? The administration is lousy with Googlers"
        
        Yeah. So how do you explain Obama's appointments of numerous people friendly to the entertainment industry and hostile to opposing interests?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris, 13 Oct 2011 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    I know it's off topic but why the heck is a public school making campaign contributions. Don't they need that money to run the school, and how can such uses be permitted in their budget?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2011 @ 7:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's from their PAC, officers, employees and families. Not from their operating budget.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 2:47pm

Hmm might be time to set up a private (or open source) DNS server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 6:17pm

VeriSign Seeks Greater Power To Help Law Enforcement Around The Globe Censor Websites They Don't Like

"They Don't Like" Are you serious? That's not a headline, that's a FUDline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:02pm
  
  Re:
  Taking down websites based on complaints from law enforcement is very much a matter of censoring websites law enforcers don't like. It's not as it they have to prove any of those websites are breaking the law. Under Verizon's proposal, their complaints are enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 12 Oct 2011 @ 6:57pm

It's no surprise that some people do not like the ease of modern day communication amongst the peons and would like to put a stop it. Apparently they realize this would cause much uproar and are attempting the slow and gradual removal of the internet as a communications platform. In its place will be a shiny new and hopelessly useless POS media distribution system much like television.

Needless to say , these people are short sighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Common Man, 13 Oct 2011 @ 11:52pm

Verisign will be denied this new power; it is bad
You take our freedom and oppress us.
We are anonymous.
You will not receive this new power.
--The Common Man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]