US Government Admits It Has Seized Hundreds Of Domains Registered Outside The US
from the this-has-been-happening-for-a-while dept
After the US seized Bodog.com, we pointed to a writeup by EasyDNS that has created quite a stir, claiming that this was the first time that the US had seized a domain that was registered through a non-US registrar by going straight to the register (in this case VeriSign). But as we pointed out, that's simply untrue. Back in 2010 we wrote about how most of the federal government's domain seizures went directly to the register.For whatever reason, more and more people keep picking up on the EasyDNS piece, including interesting questions about whether or not these seizures could be seen as declarations of war by seizing foreign property.
I'm glad that people are up in arms about this, but it's important to remember that this simply isn't new. In fact, the feds themselves seem bewildered by all these claims. In an interview with Wired, ICE spokesperson Nicole Navas admits that the government has seized approximately 750 domains this way, with the vast majority of them using foreign registrars:
Such seizures are becoming commonplace under the Obama administration. For example, the U.S. government program known as Operation in Our Sites acquires federal court orders to shutter sites it believes are hawking counterfeited goods, illegal sports streams and unauthorized movies and music. Navas said the U.S. government has seized 750 domain names, “most with foreign-based registrars.”So, sure, speak up about this, but please, please recognize that this isn't new. It's been going on for at least three years. Hell, it's so common these days that PIR, who runs the .org register, has a dedicated page listing out all the domains they've handed over to the feds.
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, domain seizures, foreign domains, ice, jurisdiction, nicole navas, register, registrar
Companies: bodog, verisign
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A dot com is simply a name, not property anyone can really own. The point of registering it is so that it can be globally unique, and the register happens to often reside in the U.S.
To me the problem here is not that the U.S. is 'stealing' domains or 'taking property' (since I don't believe they truly are here), it's that the U.S. has suddenly decided to be a giant dick to everyone and go against the commonly accepted rules that every nation (including the U.S.!) had agreed upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I want to direct a specific .com domain to a completely different IP address on my own network, and/or host a specific .com on a server of my choosing, I have the ability to do so without any Verisign-operated DNS or registrar involved.
Ultimately, the only reason we have registrars at all is to maintain a centralized, sane database of domain "ownership". Once this centralized database becomes insane (read: governments seeking to control it in a way that goes against the grain of the internet as a whole), they will cease to become relevant.
This is why governments worldwide are making a huge mistake - all they're doing is driving DNS resolution underground and essentially removing it from the existing "powers" that control it in a centralized fashion.
I have complete control over DNS resolution on my own network, and I can redirect any domain to any server I wish (including my own internal servers, or none at all).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your .com exists as a result of Verisign. If Verisign pulls the plug, the domain disappears, no matter what else you do with it. You can point all you want, nobody will get there because your domain will not be in the zone files at all.
"Ultimately, the only reason we have registrars at all is to maintain a centralized, sane database of domain "ownership". "
No, the idea is that you have a single source for dot whatever domains. You avoid duplication (ie, you don't have different .COM domains in different countries... can you imagine if techdirt.com in england went to BPI?). It's the body that not only has a database of domains, but regulates disputes and assures that there is only one .COM out there.
What you can do LOCALLY with DNS (or your windows HOSTS file) is not particularly relevant. Further, if larger groups decided to ignore the zone files and run their own variations of .COM, the internet would be broken, way worse than anything SOPA could have done.
It's just a fail from end to end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suddenly, all this work to block everything goes down the tubes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He was making the point that these actions by the US will inevitably lead to a balkanized DNS system because people will stop using the official one and start using privately-run ones.
The US is being incredibly shortsighted in its actions here. It is changing the DNS system from the neutral database it's supposed to be (like a phone book) to one that is edited according to political whims. That dramatically reduces the ability to trust and rely on it, which, in effect, means that it breaks it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cure is worse than the cause, IMHO - and this is EXACTLY the type of thing that everyone bitched about over SOPA.
Is it so weird that SOPA was going to "break the internet", and now there is a suggesting that breaking the internet is the best way? Want to talk about man in the middle attacks?
It's stupid at a level that is almost undeniable, even by Mike and Marcus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which will have simple rules to fallow and everybody can get a copy through their peers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However if the options are between an internet broken by government interferance and an internet broken by fragmentation, the second is the lesser of two evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't a cure, and nobody wants to see it happen. Yes, it is very much like one of the prime problems with SOPA.
If you're hearing people advocate this, then you're not hearing what we're saying. We're saying that this will be the inevitable result of the US' behavior, not that it's a good thing.
Look at it from the user's point of view: the US will put us in a position where we can either have a DNS system broken by politics, or a DNS system broken in a way that still allows at least some of the main benefits of it to exist. Either way, it would be the US that broke it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then it doesn't matter fuck-all what you and verisign think - other people can request any .com I put in my DNS records, and it will go to the server I specify.
I'm glad you believe I don't know how the internet works... I on the other hand am certain that you don't have the faintest clue where shit is headed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, it's a failure all down the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to believe that somehow a government-controlled system is going to win out in the long run - I think you'll find that it will be quite the opposite.
With technologies like DNSSEC becoming more prevalent, the only solutions that will win are the ones that don't get fucked with - and that includes the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All it is is a linked list placed in a central repository FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY that states if someone types. blahblah.com in their browser that blahblah.com gets sent to 127.0.0.1 or whatever actual IP number it is owned by somewhere in the world (or on the private intranet that the person is on),
Any DNS server can nominate that typing blahblah.com can go to ANY ip address they so desire. You can even make a url called blahblah.ihatetheusgovt and still send it somewhere.
The URL ending in .com is for HUMAN READABILITY sake. Nothing more or less! since .com domains are NOT for what they are supposed to be for "commercial activity only"
What everyone is trying to get across to you is that with the USG acting as Judge/jury/Starchamber on what they consider they control, all this will do is make the rest of the world say . WTF! Why are we allowing this, Governments are already looking at this as a sovereignty issue and looking at ways to stop it. Private Orgs are looking at OpenDNS or high end Darknet systems.
All the USG is going to do is make the US a walled isolationist country not only on the Internet but physically as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say the registrar isn't subject to U.S. Law, I said the U.S. is being a giant dick. They are asking Verisign to help them remove items from the registry and and Verisign is obliging despite no charges, no adversarial hearing, and not even any notification before they do it.
Whether they are within their rights to ask or not, they are being a giant dick doing it in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of ACTA
This would be the simplest way to establish clear jurisdictional boundaries on a web site. If you don't want to face extradition for the laws of another country, you just don't register through that country.
You'd probably need to exclude the USTR from negotiations until after everyone else had already ratified it though. Of course, you just need to put it in a public place and the USTR is unlikely to realize it exists! As a bonus, the citizenry and Congress of the US would still be able to be involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Instead of ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Instead of ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Instead of ACTA
"The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is the United States government agency responsible for developing and recommending United States trade policy to the president of the United States, conducting trade negotiations at bilateral and multilateral levels, and coordinating trade policy within the government through the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) and Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG)."
It is a part of the US executive branch, not a lobbying group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think that they did anything like this prior to 2010. The Bush Administration had some anti-porn prosecutions by the FBI, but didn't have the anti-counterfeit goods, anti-piracy, IP, and anti-gambling prosecutions we've seen from the Obama Administration.
Oh well, I guess this is the Change people were voting for.
Good thing for the Obama Administration that they don't have to worry about any of their loyal voters actually voting against them for this. (Same reason why Democrats didn't change votes on SOPA or PIPA the way that the Republicans did.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We NEED new politicians for the love of God, these dolts are clueless - they are still trying to run the US like it's 1940 and a with a tyrannical power expansionist policy on top of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CSAWP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rest of us need to start looking for ways to route around the problem. Fragmentation would be bad but a best case scenario would be an internationally controlled root DNS system separate from the US, so in effect there would be a US internet, and a separate 'global' internet.
It would reduce the fragmentation down to 2, and leave the rest of us with a system the same as what we have now. Anything else would create a security nightmare, and leave everyone open to MITM attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example the U.S. Coast Guard seizes a foreign-flagged ship in international waters, confiscates the cargo and arrests the crew. How is it different, legally speaking, from the Shores of Tripoli incident the U.S. Marines still sing about? After all, what the pirates in that sung-of incident were doing wasn't illegal in their home nations.
Where is the line drawn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wherever the US government wants it to be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As others said: as long as the .com Registry remains in Virginia, it's bound to follow any applicable U.S. law. Even if the Registry is in another country, though, it's still likewise bound by any applicable law in that country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decentralized Alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decentralized Alternatives
BitDND: http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legality???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's who governs the domain exstension that matters
Personally I think they're on legally shaky ground there and would probably lose in court if that reasoning was used. In the UK I can buy a .com domain from a UK based registrar. I can also buy an American car from a UK based dealership.
Now if the dealership was caught selling ringers I think it would be highly doubtful the US authorities would be interested much less come storming over here asserting some sort of dubious authority and start confiscating cars. So why is supposed IP treated differently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's who governs the domain exstension that matters
Well it isn't IP for starts but it's probably because it's an ongoing service and not property.
If a country is stupid enough to treat a DNS service as being ever so remotely involved in supposed crimes and pass laws that allow it to compel the registrar to cease a service on their request then legally they're fine, even if history will mark them down as morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two faced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just about anyone, other than a tyrant making decisions would be preferable to the 'lawmakers' we have now.
Lawmakers that don't bother to follow the laws they put in place... makes a lot of sense... to a moron on crack. Once the 'rule of law' is tossed out the door, all the laws in the world are meaningless. If the government doesn't have to follow it's own laws - why do we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]