FDA Is Angry That ICANN Won't Just Censor Websites On Its Say So
from the what's-wrong-with-a-court-order? dept
It's not just the City of London Police demanding that websites be taken offline without any due process. It appears that the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is getting in on the game as well. The Wall Street Journal recently published a detailed article about how angry the FDA is with ICANN (there's also a corresponding blog post which may not face the same paywall restrictions) for not simply killing domains that the FDA deems "rogue pharmacies." That's not to say that there aren't reasonable concerns about rogue pharmacies. There are clearly some concerns about those sites, but it seems like there are better ways to deal with those than just barging in and saying that ICANN and registrars need to take down sites based solely on their say so.In July, the FDA teamed with Interpol and dozens of countries to try to shut down more than 1,300 websites suspected of selling drugs without a prescription. Officials sent a list of all the websites, carrying names such as buyoxycontinonline.com and approvedonlinepharmacy.net, to the Chinese company that registered them. The company replied with a request for a court order and then sent a terse follow-up email: “It is not possible for us to take action.”But here's the thing. Everyone in the articles (including the reporters) seem to take it as perfectly reasonable that ICANN and/or these registrars should have just taken down these sites. No one points out that BizCN seemed to respond properly by asking for a court order. ICANN isn't in the business of censorship. It shouldn't be the one to determine if a site is an illegal pharmacy or not. There's a reason why we have due process and courts to adjudicate decisions like that. Putting the entire burden on registrars and/or ICANN to act as internet cops, ready to take down sites at a notification's notice seems tremendously problematic.
In frustration, officials turned to the Internet’s central administrator, an organization called the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann. Its contract with the registrar, BizCN.com, requires the company to investigate reports of illegal behavior.
It's a recipe for censorship, stifling free speech and hindering innovation. And yet, that's what the FDA and others want:
Because of its central role, regulators and law-enforcement agencies around the world say Icann could be crucial to their crackdown on illicit Internet operators of all kinds.Already, just in the online pharmacy space, we've seen how certain pharmaceutical companies like to conflate the small number of truly "rogue" pharmacies that sell either counterfeit drugs or real drugs without proper procedures, with perfectly safe and legal Canadian pharmacies that many Americans rely on for cheaper drugs. The big pharmaceutical companies would like to shut down that competition, even as American politicians have explored expanding the ability of US citizens to get their drugs from such pharmacies. And that's why it's reasonable to ask for an actual court order before taking down sites -- rather than just assuming that some bureaucrat at the FDA can accurately determine which sites are "good" and which are "bad," and then demand that registrars or ICANN automatically take action.
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: canadian pharmacies, censorship, fda, icann, interpol, pharmaceuticals, pharmacies, registrars, rogue pharmacies, rogue sites
Companies: bizcn, icann
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is it me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Taking down the domains hurts, but its hardly a pancea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suspected
"...shut down more than 1,300 websites suspected..."
"suspected" is not enough to ask anyone to do anything...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Suspected
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Suspected
-USG and related agencies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Is it me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There really are better ways
So a useful tool for defending networks is to use DNS RPZ in order to cause any domain that's known to be registered via Bizcn to fail to resolve. This is strictly voluntary; it doesn't affect anyone or anything beyond the local environment; it doesn't require a court order; it doesn't require any action from Bizcn; and it's limited in scope.
Voluntary action such as this, taken either unilaterally or in cooperation with others, is far more effective. We've been doing it with spammers for many years, and it works. (Yes, there are occasionally false positives, but we've developed rather sophisticated mechanisms for detecting and correcting those.)
Instead of asking ICANN -- or any other central authority -- to defend us, we should taken it upon ourselves when and where we see fit. (Note: if you think this is "vigilantism" then (a) you are wrong (b) you do not understand what vigilatism is (c) you do not understand how the Internet works.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bunched Panties
We can't get by with merely issuing recall recommendations anymore? . . F** all 'yall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
unclear?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There really are better ways
And I'm a little concerned here; applying your advice to this situation seems to say to me that you want the FDA to approach ISPs to get the DNS servers they provide to their customers to not resolve these names?
Is that correct?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: unclear?
Without the court order, why should those sites be taken down, even if they are in breach of the law of the US, without evidence? I would ask for evidence of the court order, so I could spend a few minutes verifying that such a case exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There really are better ways
Mechanisms that at least occasionally fail, as I can personally attest from having gone through a protracted nightmare trying to get one of my servers out from under a block.
It was that experience that soured me on the notion of this kind of blocking entirely. I don't want my ISP deciding who I get to talk to or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what is a real pisser though is all the news reports about 'net neutrality', the internet being free, freedom of speech, privacy and others as well, yet the USA government, along with the UK government more than any others i've read about, are trying to dictate what should and shouldn't be available and accessible on the 'net, who should be able to get at the 'whatever' etc, and most importantly, whether the net should be a payable extra, with different speeds depending on whether a person/country is rich or not!! after the constant condemnation of N.Korea, China and other nations because of website blocking and internet censorship, the US and the UK are proving themselves to be at least as bad whilst still trying to decry those nations on humanitarian, privacy and freedom grounds! what two-faced fuckers we have in governments!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it me?
Now the whole things is just a POS that cares more about the party line than it does about little things like facts. I don't even trust the basic business indexes printed in it anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legitimizing decisions about censorship
(Emphasis added.) (H/T CircleID)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Internet’s central administrator"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Legitimizing decisions about censorship
Here's a link for the "wrangling in Busan" that Nancy Scola's recent Washington Post column talks about:
ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 (PP-14)
20 October - 7 November 2014
BEXCO, Busan, Republic of Korea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's to stop China, Russia or even othernone "western" government sending request to icann to take down "western" website that doesn't fit their religios, political, or for the lulz"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: unclear?
Sounds to me like in between they did receive the court order; but it doesn't explicitly say so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damned Lies and Statistics
A quick browse to LegitScripts' website reveals that there are exactly 35,610 illegal online pharmacies in the world, but only 212 legal pharmacies.
Wow! Who knew that 99.4% of the entire online world was so completely over-run with crooks?
LegitScript tells us that only online pharmacies who have pledged to follow the regulations issued by the FDA and the DEA are legal.
If you read a bit more about LegitScript you find that its chief reason for existence is to help pharmaceutical companies keep inexpensive medications out of the mailboxes of US consumers, and thereby ensure that the US drug pricing scheme is maintained.
Dubious made-up scare-mongering statistics - they're not just for media copyrights and trademarks anymore, they work for pharmaceutical patents too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There really are better ways
Cool. So, why is ICANN being urged to remove the domains of their customers, and not to revoke BizCN's own contract with ICANN themselves? Why not go after the unscrupulous vendor rather than attacking its customers individually?
Just because you don't of legitimate companies, that doesn't mean they don't exist. If BizCN is stopped from acting as a registrar, those customers will move to legitimate registrars. If their legitimate domains are blocked by ICANN, their business is killed while they fight to get their property back.
"We've been doing it with spammers for many years, and it works. (Yes, there are occasionally false positives, but we've developed rather sophisticated mechanisms for detecting and correcting those.)"
Mechanisms that don't always work, and are often piss-poor at getting corrected when some unsuspecting person buys a domain for legitimate usage only to find that the previous owner got it blocked, for example. Doubly so if you're using shared server hosting and some spammer has managed to get the IP blacklisted for the entire server and the hundreds of sites on there. Sometimes all it takes is an idiot misconfiguring the server so that it acts as an open relay for a few hours. I've spent many a week trying to get sites off blacklists, and believe me it's a painful process for the truly innocent.
I don't know which specific company or mechanism you're talking about, but those false positives are a *major* problem for many people. As ever, the quick and "easy" route will affect innocent people and affect them badly. Believe me, it's not a good thing if you're one of those false positives, especially with the action being encouraged by the FDA, which would leave property and business removed without process or possibly even recourse. If ICANN have a contract with the registrar that's being violated, why not put the effort into encouraging them to honour their own terms? If no such contract is being violated, why not pressure ICANN into introducing such clauses? Why play games with smaller fish?
"if you think this is "vigilantism" then (a) you are wrong"
But, like most ACs who smugly proclaim such things, you won't bother to explain why. No, we have to take your godlike knowledge at face value, even though you neither detail it nor present a reason to trust you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I recently traveled to L.A. to personally deliver 24,349 consumer signatures to ICANN along with a message opposing the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy's bid to control the .pharmacy domain. Our concern is that the NABP (and more recently, the FDA) has a history of rejecting all international online pharmacies and labeling them as rogues.
Yes, rogue pharmacies are a problem that should be taken seriously. But this blanket approach of shutting down all suspect websites is problematic. Instead, why not educate consumers about how to choose a safe online pharmacy? There are ways to distinguish between rogue and legit pharmacies. Organizations out there such as CIPA and PharmacyChecker.com certify the safety of online pharmacies.
Legitimate international online pharmacies require prescriptions and they sell the same drugs available in the U.S.--only at cheaper prices. Five million Americans each year depend on these pharmacies to access the medicine they need at prices they can afford. If there's any doubt about that, visit the testimonials section on our website: http://www.rxrights.org/testimonials/
Lee Graczyk, RxRights lead organizer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]