Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Ashcroft v. Registrars on Domain Property Status 62

Posted by timothy from the hey-that's-not-a-press dept.
pbuxton writes "Here's a CNN story about the confiscation of domain names by law enforcement. An interesting dilemma noted in the story is that a domain name is either a mere service, which would let Verisign, et al., off the legal hook for mismanagement, or it is property which can be siezed by police and judges." This story mentions (and adds some perspective) to the recent seizure of ISOnews.com.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ashcroft v. Registrars on Domain Property Status More

Ashcroft v. Registrars on Domain Property Status

Comments Filter:

  • my thoughts.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    police, governments, etc. shut down illegal businesss (eg - mob related activities, drug goons, telemarketing scams) all the time. Sure, they'll return in another capacity. They seize assets, people who were unknowingly working there lose their job, etc. The government (state, federal, whatever)

    This is basically teh same as a website which offers info about drug trade, warez, etc. Hence, the government should be permitted seizure of domain names used exclusively for those activities.

    While I agree with the notion that the gov'ies replace the website with one of their own, I do agree that info on who connects to that server should follow some acceptable policy.

    • Re:my thoughts.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by \\ ( 118555 )
      i think the question here is, if the government can seize your domains from you, does that mean that you then OWN the domains?

      verisign and other registrars have argued that you are just paying them for their services; some other registrars (gandi.net?) have written in the contract that YOU own the domain, and they merely provide services for you. (why anyone stays with verisign after their years of shitty service and support, i'll never understand.)

      • Re:my thoughts.... (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        does that mean that you then OWN the domains?

        well, we always refer to domains as "my" domainname. people (even on /.) say it, businesses say it, lawyers say it, etc. people (again, on ./) are quick to defend their domain name like it's their turf when lawyers come saying "your domain violates my client's trademark, hand it over to my client."

      • Re:my thoughts.... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @01:53AM (#5447228) Homepage Journal
        Yep if you own it they can seize it. Otherwise it is simply a service they can wiretap but they have to stop your business or arrest you some other way.

        For instance, who ever heard of the government 'seizing' your phone number? How about 'seizing' your address?

        Well that's where you can make a comparison... is an internet address more like a land address or a phone number? If land then it's property, if just a phone number then it's not... or is it?

        With the new legislation being proposed about phone numbers which stay with you regardless of your service, this becomes more interesting...

        • I'll bet the folks at 1-800-FLOWERS would argue that phone number is their property.
          • Actually they may have a case for claiming copyright on the mnemonic 1-800-FLOWERS, but if they stop paying the bill I'm sure the phone company wouldn't hesitate to collect the monthly rent on 1-800-356-9377 from some other company.

  • Bigger problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @12:57AM (#5447024) Homepage Journal
    The whole concept behind property seizures is a little disturbing. It is the complete removal of due process to confiscate and sell for profit all of the offender's drug-loot before the trial has even begun.

    This is the only crime where such an action is permitted, and it is wrong.
    • Absolutely, I agree. But, in a more immediate sense, this will help determine how domain names are viewed in the first place -- and if the confiscation is even possible. Once that gets decided, then it can be decided if unfair confiscations laws need to be addressed here.
    • You kidding? All that's just wealth redistribution--someone somewhere winds up with the cash. All of it goes back into the big economic bucket to be taxed and taxed again.

      Here's the real problem: The vast majority of the offender's assets are simply destroyed. Ever wonder what happens to those tons of pot that get confisticated? Well, it's all burned. Millions of dollars of pot that could be used to pay for more drug enforcement officers confisticating more pot just goes to waste right there.

      Whats worse, the destruction of these real assets then leads to inflation and trade imbalances.

      Now, some people whine about tax cuts for the rich. Don't make me laugh! Who do you think is harmed most when the price of drugs goes up 250% after a raid? That's right, it's the people who have real jobs as CEO's and Congressmen, who then have to go out and blow their hard-earned income on artificially price-inflated cocaine. The dealers don't shoulder that cost, let me tell you--it's the customer that gets it in the ass.

      I call on all true patriots to write their representatives requesting that taxes on the rich be eliminated, and the lost revenue be made up by selling confisticated narcotics in schools from low-income districts.

      God bless America, George Bush, and John Ashcroft!

    • Re:Bigger problem (Score:3, Insightful)

      by knobmaker ( 523595 )
      This is the only crime where such an action is permitted, and it is wrong.

      Unfortunately, the drug war forfeiture abuses have spread to other crimes. Quite a few years back a woman's home was seized because she stole a UPS package off a neighbor's porch. I don't like thieves, but it was pretty tough on her husband and children, who lost their home through no fault of their own.

      A week or so back, I submitted a story [slashdot.org]about this hijacking-the-domains of evil drug paraphernalia pashas. At the time, Ashcroft was talking about redirecting these domains to DEA servers, where those who had tried to visit the paraphernalia sites would be served an "explanation" for why the sites were no longer available. I couldn't see any reason the DEA wouldn't like to identify the visitor. Grist for the Total Information Awareness mill. After all, drug users have a weakness that might be exploited by America's enemies. We have to remember, all's fair in war.

      Is it just me, or is it starting to get ugly?

    • Re:Bigger problem (Score:3, Informative)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
      You're right to be concerned about asset forfeiture, and I just complained [slashdot.org] about it a moment ago elsewhere. A couple of clarifications I'd add here -- there is due process in forfeiture, meaning notice of the proposed seizure and an opportunity to be heard. What's odd, though, is that the proceeding centers on the property, kind of as if *it* were guilty. So the owner can't protest their own innocence of the illegal conduct, only whether the item is properly subject to forfeiture -- which doesn't require a criminal conviction but a less burden of proof more-likely-than-not civil proceeding. So the due process may not do you much good, but it is there.

      In some ways the concept makes sense -- you seize the priceless antique gun that was used as a murder weapon (in old English law sometimes called a deodand), the farm used t grow pot, the Learjet used to import drugs, and so on. But wow, it gives the state some fearsome power, and is especially pointless when used against innocent owners whose property is misused without their knowledge or consent. Unlike restitution or fines, proportionality is simply not an issue. But Ashcroft did not invent it, I think forfeiture has been pretty hot since the 80's, and its use dates back in one form or another such as the deodand over centuries (if you think our gov't is greedy, you should check out what the Crown was like).

  • Ugh...no good answer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lurkingrue ( 521019 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @01:06AM (#5447061)
    It looks like there'll be negative fallout whatever the decision on this one. Either way, some bad things will have to be dealt with...But, to be more of a glass-is-half-full optimistic type, at least it will clarify the status of domain names, and drag them out of the legal limbo in which they currently reside. Better to know where you stand, right?

    While it has been interesting to have all these legal and technological arguments (and it certainly provided the Slashdot crowd with many entertaining articles the domain names have been something of a Schrödinger's cat of the internet -- now the box is being opened.

    Of course, just because the issue gets decided in the US doesn't mean that any conclusions reached will necessarily become international law.
    • I think you've hit the nail on the head. This situation will be definitive. Either the Feds have their way and domains are property, or the Registrars get their way and domains are a service. Both can't coexist. I have a feeling that the Feds will win.


      BTW, I'm a glass-is-neither-half-full-nor-half-empty type. The glass is twice as large as it needs to be. Unless you plan on filling it with Guiness.

  • Tampering with Evidence (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If the cops seized a domain, isn't that evidence? And if it is, wouldn't the cops using it be guilty of tampering with evidence? I doubt cops seize cars and boats from drug dealers and runners and start using them immediately. Don't they have to wait until AFTER the case goes through court? This smacks of unreasonable seizure.

    • I just went and visited http://www.isonews.com/ [isonews.com] and noticed something. They're using an image that used to be part of the site as part of the new site. Am I wrong, or is that infringing on the copyright owned by the creator of that image?

      Shouldn't the DOJ now be charged with "conspiracy to violate criminal copyright laws" for using that image without permission?

    • If the cops seized a domain, isn't that evidence?
      Evidence of what, owning a domain? Unless your domain name is ijoemurderedmywifesandraonthe24th.com, it's not going to be evidence of anything.

      This strikes me as similar to cops staging a bust on a whorehouse and then shutting it down as soon as they've made the arrests. Maybe they have a sign up saying why it's closed, possibly with a stern warning not to be a john any more. After some convictions or pleas admitting guilt, I expect they could open the place up again and use it for stings if they wanted to.

      I don't really see how monitoring visitors to a drug-accessories website - after legally seizing it - is different from monitoring visitors to a known crackhouse. Which cops use all the time as probable cause to pull people over and conduct searches, even when they don't control the crackhouse.

  • Wiretapping (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since it's a domain and communications go there (such as email), then seizing the domain and listening to the traffic is wiretapping, no? Don't the Feds need a court order to wiretap?
    • Interestingly monitoring internet activity may not even rise to the level of being a wiretap [cdt.org]. Wiretap are relatively carefully regulated thanks to President Nixon (in an indirect way!) but methods analogous to the old fashioned pen register and mistakenly thought less dangerous may be applicable to the internet.

      And if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) comes into play, watch out.

      Analogies are a risky thing, so legislation explicitly addressing internet privacy would seem be a prudent step. Maybe after we win the war on terrorism. Maybe.

  • Ashcroft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @01:20AM (#5447119) Journal
    I was willing to take a chance on GW Bush after eight years of Clinton.

    But Ashcroft scares me.
    • He imprisons people who have been legally appointed by California towns to distribute medical marijuana to the terminally ill.
    • He wants to prevent states from allowing assisted suicide, but claims he's a supporter of states' rights.
    • While terrorists threaten out country, he make a point of going after, of all things, head shops.
    • He wants the power to deprive Americans of their citizenship without due process, if they're suspected of involvement with designated terrorist organizations.
    • He allows the American citizens to be taken into military custody and held incommunicado if they're merely designated "enemy combatants" -- even if arrested within U.S. borders.


    Four more years of Ashcroft will see the U.S. Constitution a historical curiosity. "Your papers, citizen!"

    And this is why I'm voting for the Democratic candidate for President in 2004 -- whomever that candidate is. Dump Ashcroft.
    • Whats the rules on impeachment? Can't "we the people" still decide who runs this place?

      Or can we atleast take his power away somewhat by voting?

    • And this is why I'm voting for the Democratic candidate for President in 2004 -- whomever that candidate is. Dump Ashcroft.


      So if the Democrat candidate has an even more restrictive policy, where will you be then?

      Voting for the opposition is fine, but at least do some research first.

    • Ummm... resistance to mandatory identity papers comes much more strongly from the right than from the left. It isn't a partisan thing, there are figures in both parties on both sides of the issue but I've seen more anti-ID fire and brimstone from the right. Remember, a national health card was one of the reasons that the right put the brakes on Clinton's healthcare reform measures in '93. The same impulse is alive and well today.
      • The only reason the right wing cares about a national ID is because of that whole "mark of the beast" thing. If Revelations said that when Jesus came back he was going to assign everyone a unique identifier and that this was going to be a good thing, they'd be all for it.
        • I can understand not wanting to associate with Stalin or Hitler lovers but these guys, strange as they may seem to you, aren't moral monsters.
          • Let them (the right wingers--or the left wingers for that matter) get that pesky ol' Constitution and Bill of Rights out of the way, and then see if you still feel the same way.

  • Ahem. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm a Christian.

    I'm not voting for Bush.

    He's not a Christian, he's a fascist.
    • He's not a Christian, he's a fascist.

      I feel for you.

      I've known some Christians and they're definately not all fascist. Unfortunately, we get that impression from the ones that gain power to the little old ladies who lash out at young people to the imbalanced men on the subway. I live in New York where practically everone thinks of Christians as ignorant small minded bigots, but for every Christian that hates immigrants or Muslims, whatever, I'll find you a Jew that hates Poles, an Athiest that hates Southerners, etc. Evil is not confined to any religion, I'd bet dollar to donut most evil is committed by Christians only because you currently have the most power. When someone else is on top, evil won't take a holiday.

      Well maybe a holiday, but it will be a matter of weeks, not months...
      • Well maybe a holiday, but it will be a matter of weeks, not months...

        I posted to this thread and can't moderate. Otherwise, I'd do something -- moderate funny, hell yes -- insightful -- also true.

  • At it again? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @01:29AM (#5447157) Homepage
    Most telling statement; "The government has done many things over the years, that ultimately turn out not to be legal." said Michael Overly, an attorney specializing in computer law at Foley & Lardner.

    Personally I feel that Ashcroft would love to test that envelope.

    On the otherhand this does present a case for placing a real value on domain names as company assets.

    More troublesome would be to confiscate domains like http://whitehouse.org [whitehouse.org] and gwbush.com [gwbush.com] which has been critical of the present monarchy. Allege a 'drug' or 'terrorism' charge and seize the domain pending outcome of the trial. This would allow them to shut down that site without looking like they were attacking the FIRST AMENDMENT [freedomforum.org].

    The regular cops do this all the time with assets like cars and land. Local Governments even use that to aid in their finances. Budgeting against predicted seizure quotas [mndaily.com] Sure they will give back it's 'Value' years later after a civil suit which is even more longer. Or let it 'expire'

    If this happens expect Whitehouse.org to be seized under eminent domain.

  • Scorched earth (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @01:59AM (#5447247) Homepage
    I won't join in railing against "the government" because I've spent a fair amount of time working for the feds and respect many of the career investigators and prosecutors who bust folks 99% of us would want put away anyway. Some of the best talent in the country works for DOJ, for example; these jobs are coveted despite paying half that of private practice. But with great power comes great responsibility; thank goodness for defense attorneys and civil liberties organization.

    Asset forfeiture -- assuming here a domain is an asset -- has been going on for centuries and now practically became a profit center for some law enforcement organizations. It steps from an ancient concept that something used in the commission of a crime is "soiled" and is thus forfeited to the state. (This shouldn't be confused as someone does above with contraband such as illegal drugs, which are always seized and generally have no market value; contraband is by definition illegal to possess.) It doesn't matter whether the value of the item is proportional to the offense or whether the owner has the slightest blame, as with a couple that lost their car after the husband performed received oral sex from a prostitute in it. The lawsuit was brought by the innocent spouse to recover her portion of the car's value. She lost! [fear.org]

    Extraordinary cases of forfeiture abuse abound, such as a woman who lost her house because her son grew some pot in the backyard without her knowledge or even her negligence. Yes, asset forfeiture standing alone is frightening enough and has needed reining in for at least a decade. But no one complains too much when it's drug dealers (gasp) getting shafted.

    The choices local federal prosecutors make are influenced heavily by what comes out of Washington. If AG Ashcroft sets a priority, the various offices must follow. Ashcroft has set what I'd describe as a "scorched earth" policy to take law enforcement powers to the max in pursuit of specific political objectives. The AG has gone so far as to requiring prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases where they had decided otherwise, reversing practice of many years to respect the prosecutors on the scene, and of offices in non-death penalty states such as Mass to respect the state's practice. Whatever my feelings about the death penlty, I'm concerned by such micromanagement by a central authority that just can't possibly evaluate every case in sufficient detail for this sort of decision.

    My point is not to underestimate the power of a few political appointees. What you're reading in this case stems from a philosophy do different from the motivations behind the oddly named Patriot Act, domestic spying, and who knows what else we won't learn about until Congressional hearings some day.

    With regard to the present case, whether a domain name is property is not half as disturbing an issue as the possibility the government might use them as a surreptitious vehicle for gathering evidence. As for whether it is property, the answer must be yes -- ask amazon.com if they'd like to change their URL. The conventional is that a domain name is renewable forever and can't be transferred without consent or misconductg of the owner; I think the courts will hold this is a property interest -- subject to forfeiture, naturally.
    • I'm sorry, but I think that federal law enforcement should be busier catching violent criminals instead of people running head shops, or selling mod chips online.
      • Before Sept. 11th, Ashcroft was readying his offensive against porn. That was all derailed for a while though. Now that Ashcroft's attention is drifting from terrorism, he might just go after porn after all.

        Pornographers and head shops are great targets for him, because they look good politically, and they are a lot easier to track down than terrorists.
      • This article in National Review [nationalreview.com] the US' premier mainstream journal of the right wing blasts the entire head shop episode.

        Hey, maybe those right-wingers aren't such fascists after all?
        • Hey, maybe those right-wingers aren't such fascists after all?

          I've never been able to understand why so many self-proclaimed conservatives support the drug war. It's always seemed to me to be the ultimate example of a goofy liberal social-engineering boondoggle. Think about it. We've been fighting the war for decades, spent zillions of tax dollars on it, and all it's done is make matters a thousand times worse than they were before there were any drug laws. It's hideously expensive, doesn't work, and has had horrendous unforeseen consequences, including the enrichment of vicious criminals, destabilization of foreign governments, funding terrorists and changing the U.S. from the land of the free into the land of the prison. Like other liberal policies, it's ostensibly based on concern for the poor and downtrodden, or in this case the drug addict, who might die if we don't put him in jail. But it ignores the welfare of everyone else, who must pay the cost of this boondoggle in tax dollars, in public safety, in liberty, and institutional corruption at all levels.

          The drug war has actually damaged law-abiding people in many ways which should be close to the hearts of true conservatives. Take gun rights, as an example. The drug war has given many new weapons to liberals who think private gun ownership should be outlawed. During the Clinton administration, RICO laws developed to prosecute drug criminals were used against gun shop owners. Those who committed minor drug offenses in their youth, like many of our political leaders, but who had the misfortune to be caught, were thereby deprived of their rights to keep and bear arms, and are therefore less likely to resist attempts to outlaw private ownership of guns. And so on.

          When social conservatives support the drug war, they are betraying both their country and their own beliefs.

    • Asset forfeiture -- assuming here a domain is an asset -- has been going on for centuries

      It was a very minor thing in US law before the 1980s. Now it's a major industry, based on bad law.

  • All your bongs, are belong to us (Score:3, Funny)

    by Highwayman ( 68808 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @02:45AM (#5447345)

    I was disappointed. Knowing that some ex-h@x0rs work for DoJ, I was expecting to find the following at the isonews.com website:



    m3ss w1f d@ b3st, d13 l1k3 th3 r3st! d0j 0wnz u!

    sp3c1@l gr33ts t0 0ur l33t h@x0r fr13ndz:

    g33 duby00

    d3p@rtm3nt 0f d3f3nz3

    s@dd@m, w3'r3 c0ming f0r u!
  • why was this pulled from the front page? it doesn't show up there, even when bots announced it'd gone up.. now its just missing.. will YOU see this?

  • Ashcroft (Score:3, Informative)

    by trentfoley ( 226635 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @03:56AM (#5447543) Homepage Journal
    I'm a voting resident of Missouri. For those that don't know, Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri, then U.S. Senator for Missouri. That said, I hope everyone remembers that Ashcroft lost his senatorial re-election to Mel Carnahan, a very fine man and the deceased husband of Jean Carnahan. Mr. Carnahan died in a plane crash shortly before elections.

    It was publicly announced that it was too late to allow an alternate on the ballot, but if Mel Carnahan won, his wife, Jean Carnahan, would be take his place. This action, in itself, was arguably illegal [mdn.org].

    Well, it came to pass that Ashcroft lost by a very narrow margin, 49% to 50%. It turned out that the opposition used the courts to extend voting hours in the city of Saint Louis [cnn.com], giving the strongly Democratic area additional strength.

    Yeah, the whole national election was screwed that year. But, because of this, President Bush, threw Ashcroft a bone in the form of AG. At the time, I thought it was a fair shake. I was leary of Ashcroft, but figured that he would make a good cop. 9/11 changed all of that.

    If he had not been cheated out of his Senate seat, he would be barking, not biting. Enough said...

    • "But, because of this, President Bush, threw Ashcroft a bone..."

      And now Ashcroft is looking to bone the rest of us.


  • c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=property

    The rights to use a domain name can be transfered to another. It is obviously property - it does not take a Judge to work that one out.

    It will be a corrupt legal system that lets Verisign, et al., off the hook for mismanagement.

    P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) told a LIE when they said there is no solution to trademark and domain name problem. The answer was ratified by honest attorneys and it is indisputably self-evident. Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] to see.
  • Tax!

    Yes, tax. If they start thinking of websites as property, how long before people are taxed for them, like in MA where you pay property tax on your car?

  • Whoa. (Score:1)

    by Eccles ( 932 )
    The story submitter misspelled seized, yet the Slashdot editor spelled seizure correctly. What is this world coming to? Have they been replaced by aliens?
  • I've wondered that if domain names are found to be property, would they be taxable?

    Then if you had a nice domain name you acquired in the early 90's and some tax guy did an assessment of it and figured it was worth $1,000,000? Could you afford to keep it?

    sigh.
    • "I've wondered that if domain names are found to be property, would they be taxable?"

      You may well have hit on what will be an unseen thumb on the scales when this gets decided and it's a shame this story isn't on the main page where you'd stand a better chance of getting the upmods you deserve.

      Once the tax thing is established precedent look for everyone from the local dogcatcher on up to the UN trying to get to the trough. Of course the big corporations that would have very large tax bills on their domain names will all have offshore addresses which they're already using to dodge other taxes and they'll be able to buy enough lawyers and congresscritters to get out of domain name taxes as well. In the meantime any site that the government wants to shut down can be seized for failure to pay back taxes on it when they conveniently arrange to misplace the record of the payment, and ten years later when you've finally dragged it through all the courts they'll either have sold it off to someone else or destroyed any value it once had.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=56079&ci d= 5447427

      • That link to an above comment was something I "parked" so as to put something else on the clipboard and then I changed my mind about using it but forgot it was sitting there at the bottom of the comment box, and I failed to catch it in preview as well.

  • All the parts you need are available at homedepotbongs [homedepot.com], try the button for "plumbing."

    Or assemble their "Indoor Marijuana Farm" kit, with a bank of 70 watt high pressure sodium lights.


Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close