Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online

DHS Seizes 75+ Domain Names 529

Posted by Soulskill
from the going-for-the-gusto dept.
Many readers have sent in an update to yesterday's story about the Department of Homeland Security's seizure of torrent-finder.com, a domain they believe to be involved in online piracy. As it turns out, this was just one of dozens of websites that were targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "In announcing that operation, John T. Morton, the assistant secretary of ICE, and representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America called it a long-term effort against online piracy, and said that suspected criminals would be pursued anywhere in the world. 'American business is under assault from counterfeiters and pirates every day, seven days a week,' Mr. Morton said. 'Criminals are stealing American ideas and products and distributing them over the Internet.'" The TorrentFreak article we discussed yesterday has been updated with a list of the blocked sites.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS Seizes 75+ Domain Names

Comments Filter:
  • One of Our Cancers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) * <myfirstnameispaul@gmail.com> on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:44PM (#34359296) Homepage Journal

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

    “the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons.”

    Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk. We are seeing are the final nails in the Constitution's coffin. Their is no Constitutional justification for the seizing of these sites. It violates the core of the agreements made between the people and the Government. I really wish we could return to being a republic, where each state minds its own business but keep the Federal Government operating within the bounds of the Constitution. The people in Texas can have anarchy or whatever and the people in Massachussetes can have their pristine Government institutions. Those unhappy with their state are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to move.

    I bet dollars to doughnuts that when net neutrality passes, buried deep in the legislation's text will be stronger measures than what we're seeing today.

    • by dwlovell (815091) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:51PM (#34359338)

      The websites in these cases amount to a storefront to distribute fake goods or copyrighted materials. When this happens with physical storefronts, they get shut down. I don't really see how this is any different.

      This isn't about free speech, no liberties were lost, this is about people breaking the law and reasonable steps are being taken to stop them. You shouldn't fear the government as a result of this. Take off your tinfoil hat.

      • by Skal Tura (595728) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:01PM (#34359418) Homepage

        What happened to innocent until proven quilty?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
        • by dwlovell (815091) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:09PM (#34359470)

          You don't get convicted/punished until proven guilty, that doesn't mean they don't shut down the operation when it's obvious they are actively selling fake goods right now. It is the courts job to decide what criminal charges may exist. Perhaps the shop owner didn't know they were fake? Just because the owner may not be the person criminally liable, that doesn't mean you allow the operation to continue.

          It was obvious these sites were selling fake goods and distributing copyrighted works. They shut them down and the owner's get to plead their case about how they didn't know or whatever their case is. The site still gets shut down now if they are breaking laws now.

          • by Mysteray (713473) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:06PM (#34359912) Homepage

            No, the police will show up and shut down physical stores for selling illegal things/things illegally. Perhaps they do need a judge to sign off on it, but presumably the DHS had its own paperwork in order.

            • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @06:45PM (#34360622)

              Do not ever assume that the Department of Homeland Security could find its own bottom with a strip search and a full body X-ray. Due to various laws such as the Patriot Act, they've been protected from having to actually pay attention to civil rights. They are _extremely_ careless of "having their paperwork in order".

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Mysteray (713473)

                Good point. I did think I saw something about them having a court order.

                Still, the larger point is that the effects on the network are the same from the outside even if the boundaries of the system are drawn large enough to include both the DHS and some high-level courts.

            • by jythie (914043) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @10:38PM (#34361882)
              This is one of the complaints about ICE and DHS.. they tend to exempt themselves from silly things like courts and constitutional amendments because they claim things that cross the boarder are not protected. This is why they can do things like search your laptop without cause even though normal police can not do this.
              • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Sunday November 28, 2010 @01:23AM (#34362614)

                This is one of the complaints about ICE and DHS.. they tend to exempt themselves from silly things like courts and constitutional amendments because they claim things that cross the boarder are not protected. This is why they can do things like search your laptop without cause even though normal police can not do this.

                The Supreme Court has generally backed them up on this, so it's not hard to understand why. The real question is this: since the disease of unaccountability has a one hundred percent infection rate of organizations that suffer from it ... why do we continue to allow it? I do not care who you are, I do not care how honorable you may think you are, if you have power over me you require effective oversight, and you must be held accountable for whatever actions (or inactions) you perform in my name, and the name of my fellow citizens. That is so goddamn basic to civilized society (human nature being what it is) that any law, or ruling, that successfully eliminates such protections should be enough to have a lawmaker or a judge removed from office

                Period. Governance by Patriot Act does not work, not if you want to live in anything resembling a free society, not if you want to live unafraid of your own leaders. Let's face a few facts here: Americans are more at risk from amoral or criminal acts on the part of their various governments (local, State and Federal) than they are of terrorism or outright war. That's not how the Founders intended us to live.

          • The mechanism to accomplish what you state is called an injunction [wikipedia.org]. If party A is doing something that harms party B and the cessation of the activity cannot wait until trial, party B asks a judge to issue a temporary injunction. A and B show up in court, and if the judge believes B, he orders A to stop under penalty of contempt of court.

            That's how due process is supposed to work. Note that both parties have their say. What the DHS did is not due process.

        • by Sepodati (746220) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:11PM (#34359482) Homepage

          Innocent until proven guilty, or even better, the presumption of innocence, only applies in the court. YOU have the presumption of innocence and your accuser must overcome that.

          These DNS entries were seized with a court order where enough evidence was shown to take action. No actual property was seized. The servers, files, original sites, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owners. They'll have due process and the presumption of innocence if and when they are brought into court. Since I'm sure most of these owners are outside of the US, court will never happen, though.

          • by borcharc (56372) * on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:45PM (#34360200)

            A Domain name is personal property, a court order taking it from someone without notice of the opportunity to respond to a complaint violates the second principle of natural justice, Audi alteram partem, a important backbone to our legal system. The concept of Audi alteram partem is extremely sacred in common law and requires the other side at least the opportunity to be heard before any action is taken. This is reinforced by several portions of the US Constitution and endless relevant case law. Any action, in any common law court, requires notice to be given and a reasonable time to respond to the allegations prior to and decision made by a court. You cant take someone property in absentia without at least giving them reasonable notice. PERIOD.

            • by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @08:21PM (#34361218)

              A Domain name is personal property, a court order taking it from someone without notice of the opportunity to respond to a complaint violates the second principle of natural justice, Audi alteram partem, a important backbone to our legal system. The concept of Audi alteram partem is extremely sacred in common law and requires the other side at least the opportunity to be heard before any action is taken. This is reinforced by several portions of the US Constitution and endless relevant case law. Any action, in any common law court, requires notice to be given and a reasonable time to respond to the allegations prior to and decision made by a court. You cant take someone property in absentia without at least giving them reasonable notice. PERIOD.

              Well, considering that the US government has gone so far as to throw out the nearly 800 year-old requirement of Habeus Corpus, it is not surprising that they are doing all they can to destroy any and all vestiges of civilized law. All that corporations and the US government ultimately wants is "fuck with us, or have something we want to take, and we will destroy you" kind of law.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            No actual property was seized.

            Wouldn't matter anyway. Asset forfeiture laws already permit seizure of real property without due process. The trick is to accuse the property (which has no rights of its own) of the crime. Pretty cool, huh?

        • by salesgeek (263995) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:15PM (#34359516) Homepage

          As with most crimes in progress, the law allows the police to take action to stop the crime and seize the evidence. The disposition of the evidence and means of committing the crime will be dealt with as part of whatever trial is coming.

          In this case, it looks like a ICE took down a bunch of sellers of counterfeit goods and may have overreached on the torrent site. That said, we'll all soon learn what the relationship of torrent-finder.com is to the rest of the seized domains.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Dthief (1700318)
            And pease explain why torrent-finder.com is more at fault than other search engines such as google, bing, yahoo, etc, and why the websites listed were not equally "taken over"
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

              ...and may have overreached on the torrent site.

              Reading's a bitch aint it?

              Some times it just gets so hard.

              I mean, there were two whole paragraphs there! With two sentences apiece! One can't be expected to read and understand all that information at once now, can they?

            • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:40PM (#34360164)

              Probably because they convinced a judge that sites like torrent-finder.com were being used almost exclusively by those deliberately breaking the law, which of course they could argue simply by observing the publicly available content those sites were advertising, while the major search engines are predominantly used by everyday people for legal activities and because of their automated nature may also be used by people looking for other purposes.

              Fortunately, unlike a significant proportion of Slashdot posters, the average judge does understand the difference, can identify when a group of law-breakers is taking the piss, and will authorise the relevant authorities to do something about it where the law permits.

              It's odd how the freeloaders are always quick to claim that IP is not real property, infringing copyright is not theft, they wouldn't have bought it anyway, etc., yet just because the authorities changed a few records in a DNS database after seeking a court order and acting with full judicial oversight, the sky is falling and it's some profound invasion of their fundamental human rights or something. Hypocrisy, meet Denial; Denial, this is Hypocrisy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by arivanov (12034)

          A court order is what happened.

          There is a court order for shutting down this sites and the article refers to it.

          So can we cut the "freedom", "internet only", etc malarkey. It is all above board and pretty much following proper due process and established procedures. If you sell counterfeit DVDs from a stall at the market you will get shut down. Do not see why you should not be shut down if you sell counterfeit media off a website.

          Now the definition of counterfeit, grey, illegal copying, etc are all an entir

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by fishexe (168879)

          What happened to innocent until proven quilty?

          They ran out of squares to sew together, so they decided to just presume quilt.

      • by MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) * <myfirstnameispaul@gmail.com> on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:14PM (#34359512) Homepage Journal
        By that argument, Google [google.com] should be #1 on their list of domains to seize. However, the first amendment has been violated as it uses absolute terms: "Congress shall make no law...". The sites were linking to other sites that carried the questionable material. This is the same as when a journalist is given illegally obtained information and then prints it. The journalist is not breaking the law and did not conspire to break the law and thus cannot be held liable for the crime.
      • by boxo1 (154647) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:20PM (#34359564)

        Who determines that the websites in question are distributing copyrighted materials?

        I don't call it due process when your property is seized by way of court order resulting from a hearing in which you weren't allowed to give your side of the story.

        The owner of Torrent Finder found out about the action after the site was seized. (even though the site hosts no torrents and returns search results through embedded iframes) So the site is gone until he can convince the government to give it back.

        Yeah, that's my America. Give the government the power to punish without so much as a public hearing. After all there's no chance THAT power will be abused.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by X.25 (255792)

        The websites in these cases amount to a storefront to distribute fake goods or copyrighted materials. When this happens with physical storefronts, they get shut down. I don't really see how this is any different.

        This isn't about free speech, no liberties were lost, this is about people breaking the law and reasonable steps are being taken to stop them. You shouldn't fear the government as a result of this. Take off your tinfoil hat.

        So, a torrent search engine is now a storefront for distributing fake good or copyrighted materials?

        You're smarter then you keep your mouth closed and finger far from the keyboard. Really.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by icebike (68054)

        The websites in these cases amount to a storefront to distribute fake goods or copyrighted materials. When this happens with physical storefronts, they get shut down. I don't really see how this is any different.

        If they get shut down (debatable), they get shut down by courts of law. After due process.

        Not by the Homeland Security gestapo.

        If you can't see the difference I cry for this country.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:54PM (#34359362) Journal
      Ironically, of course, grabbing 75 domain names as part of a taxpayer funded handjob for the MPAA's bottom line is a tiny; but highly visible, slice of ICE's activities and, by far, not the most sinister.

      This is an organization, after all, that has approximately 380,000 detainees enjoying its involuntary hospitality at any given time, in a nationwide network of facilities that range from "low profile" to "seriously shadowy". A fair percentage of them are undesirables of various stripes, so the public is wholly uninterested; but the process is opaque enough that their decisions aren't exactly subject to rigorous double checking. On occasion, a mysterious death or tragicomic "American citizen of the brown persuasion accidentally repatriated to some random country that he looked like he might be from, ICE tells his lawyer that they don't know where he is" story makes local headlines; but that is about it.

      I realize that Slashdot is a good headline for melodramatic techie myopia; but domain-name seizures are boy scout stuff by the standards of ICE's bread-and-butter activities...
    • by Skal Tura (595728) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:00PM (#34359410) Homepage

      mod parent something like +trillion insightfull.

      I for one fear of this, and am now forced to take .fi domain for our business and simply make our .com a forwarder. We operate torrent seedboxes, nothing illegal in them itself, but many users seem to use it for illegal purposes, as DMCA requests for our US servers is "quite frequent", despite we are not US business, using US provider forces us to follow DMCA for the servers in question. Operating within completely in the legal domain, doing everything legally, does seem to provide us little to no safety against the whims of US goverment.

      Yes, our market is likely to be used for illegal purposes. So are the tools of locksmith or the common kitchen knife possibility to be used for bad. And what the article shows is one of those.

      The business plan of MAFIAA is outdated, and should be updated, but whenever new technology comes around something like this happens, but this is the first time actual tangible efforts has happened afaik.

      I'm sick of this, the world is crazy. What matters is what the average person thinks and does, and businesses as well as goverments SHOULD fear the population. It's the only way for humanity to get the most out of our lives, and the most progress.

      You cannot stop progress. I sense a darknet to rise if this becomes too common.

      Anyone know the domain registrars in question? Is it everything ICANN controls or specific domain registrars? That would show which registrars to avoid.
      I'm also curious why they did not shut down piratebay etc. as well? what is the pattern on the sites closed? ie. what is the pattern by which they do the seizing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dunbal (464142) *

        businesses as well as goverments SHOULD fear the population.

        I just finished watching a video of stampeding bovines at Target, trampling a few people to get a small discount. After seeing something like this, I understand why government and business hold "the people" in such contempt.

        I'm also fascinated at how the great revolutions of history actually managed to get started. Perhaps it was because of the lack of things to do in a world without electricity and telec

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clarkkent09 (1104833)

      We don't live in a tyranny but we are moving in that direction. What about having nearly half of our income taken by force and most of it passed on to others whether we want it or not (tax/welfare), how about a tax system so complex that it is impossible not to break the law and where we collectively spend over $250 billion (yes with a b, look it up) on accountants just to comply with it. How about when we are forced to buy a specific health insurance policy even if we don't want one (Obamacare)? How about

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NiceGeek (126629)

      So where in all those quotes does it say that sites selling counterfeit goods are allowable?

  • by Ryanrule (1657199) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:45PM (#34359302)
    and GIVING them to china
  • Seriously, kids downloading music poses what threat, exactly, to national security?

    One more piece of evidence that our government is just a puppet of deep-pocketed corporations and special interest groups.

    I'm starting to think N. Korea is spot on...

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      I've been thinking recently that North Korea is probably boosting its economy by buying stock short, then sinking ships, shelling South Korea, etc, to drive the prices down. One could actually make a very large profit that way. Or I suppose they could just be nuts, sometimes it's hard to tell.
    • by Dutch Gun (899105)

      I'm starting to think N. Korea is spot on...

      That's sort of like amputating a leg to take care of a pesky ingrown toenail.

    • I'm starting to think N. Korea is spot on..

      Uh-oh, it must be true [erdener.org] then.

  • DHT? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:50PM (#34359334) Journal

    I'm not from the Americas, but I thought the DHT only dealt with national security issues, terrorist threats, natural disasters, and other high priority issues that affected the country. I'm not quite seeing torrent-finder.com as that, a torrent site I haven't even visited despite being a pirate. Is this honestly the same organization behind providing supplies to Katrina victims, as protecting private businesses against business models in crisis?

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Well the Obama admin, seems to have this heart-on for the term of "man made disasters", so I suppose being a pirate and copying something would qualify.

      Now some stuff like knockoff electronics, and actual items I can see the government wanting to go after and shutting them down. In Canada, we do this all the time, because cheap knockoffs can be an actual danger, but this stuff? Nah, most if it is the government trying to flex it's muscle and avoid due process.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Well the Obama admin, seems to have this heart-on for the term of "man made disasters", so I suppose being a pirate and copying something would qualify.

        The term is hard-on. The heart is a completely different part of the body.

    • by Skal Tura (595728)

      MAFIAA revenues are national security. Haven't you been paying attention? ;)
      MAFIAA atleast would like it to be so ;)

  • by serutan (259622) <snoopdougNO@SPAMgeekazon.com> on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:51PM (#34359342) Homepage

    Copyright Infringement.
    It's like Communism, only newer.

  • by SonicSpike (242293) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:52PM (#34359350) Homepage Journal

    The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Due process means that one must be found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

    And since when did the mission of DHS become copyright enforcement? And where did they get the unilateral authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner?

    Last time I checked, "copyprivilege" infringement required a civil suit by the person who held the privilege to begin with? Were these domain holders sued? Were they found guilty (liable) by a court of law?

    Is the US government out of control and operating outside the bounds of the Constitution?

    • by nycguy (892403) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:01PM (#34359420)

      Is the US government out of control and operating outside the bounds of the Constitution?

      Thankfully, our President was formerly a professor who lectured on Constitutional law. I'm sure he's going to sort this one out for us ASAP.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:13PM (#34359504)

      If you made it to the 2nd paragraph of the NYT article, you would know the sites were taken down with a warrant issued by a United States District Court. I would assume these sites were investigated and found to be distributing faked goods and infringing copyrights. Hardly No due process.

      Although I admit, it is disconcerting the DHS is behind this.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShiftyOne (1594705)
        I find it hard to say that a one sided argument to a judge of DHS's choosing is due process.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:15PM (#34359522)

      Not to defend what they are doing as I don't like it either... but from TFA it seems they did have a court order to seize these domains. The question is, how those court orders were arrived at.

      The torrent site seemed the most troubling as you can't really see how an order can be issued against what they were doing. The majority of the sites seemed to be selling counterfeit material like clothes and handbags; still iffy but you could see where possibly customs could have a hand in shutting down transfer of illegal goods.

    • by salesgeek (263995) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:24PM (#34359596) Homepage

      I believe it's in section 506 that criminal infringement is outlined. There is no civil suit requirement, and as in any criminal investigation, the government can seize evidence and the means used to commit the crime. In this case, it looks like the only one of the sites seized that may be problematic is torrent-finder.com.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clarkkent09 (1104833)

      Is the US government out of control and operating outside the bounds of the Constitution?

      No. This is done under Customs and Immigration, which is one of the legitimate jobs of the government, except in this case the products being illegally exported are digital.

      Due process means that one must be found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

      Cops do not need a jury trial before they can seize stolen goods. They seized the illegal goods just like they might seize i

    • Not to wear tinfoil but it sounds like a Law Enforcement dry run for bigger operations. .gov is "testing" to see how their methods are going to work in real life, if things will stick, how the public reaction to be.
      When the horse bolts out of the barn, you better have to grab a pre-tested lasso before data gets to far out.

      No one will admit how much data leakage happened since the late 90s with p2p flooding data out of .gov, R&D, and medical offices in the West.

      You don't think the intel community never c

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fishexe (168879)

      The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Due process means that one must be found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

      When there's a criminal proceeding, items which are evidence in the proceeding have always been subject to seizure prior to trial. The 5th Amendment has never affected that. Also, items being used in an ongoing criminal act are subject to seizure. It's no different from the cops finding a robber in the act and seizing his gun, or catching a drug-runner and seizing the car with a secret compartment hollowed out in the seat that he was using to hide his cargo.

      Last time I checked, "copyprivilege" infringement required a civil suit by the person who held the privilege to begin with? Were these domain holders sued? Were they found guilty (liable) by a court of law?

      There are both civil and criminal statutes for

  • Government control (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bonch (38532) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @03:52PM (#34359352)

    Now do you people understand the opposition to net neutrality? The government would "regulate" torrent traffic and other things that high-paying lobbyists didn't like.

    • As opposed to a non-neutral net, where it'll just get throttled down to one packet per hour.

    • by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:03PM (#34359426)

      The government wouldn't have anything to do with internet enforcement. It would only be tasked with preventing other companies from regulating traffic. Net neutrality, at least in the form proposed, wouldn't at all give the government the ability to do this sort of thing.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      I don't even know if the pay required from lobbyists is that high anymore. Some of these agencies seem to be quite agreeable to fascism with a very small push.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xtifr (1323)

      Now do you people understand the opposition to net neutrality?

      Nope. Opposition to net neutrality remains idiotic, ill-informed and/or evil. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume #2 in this case.

      The government would "regulate" torrent traffic and other things that high-paying lobbyists didn't like.

      They already do. Anyway, pointing to this as an example of the "evils" of net neutrality when we don't have net neutrality yet is some pretty funky logic (using the term very loosely).

      I gather that what you're worried about is that they may attach riders to any net neutrality bill. Well guess what? They can (and do) attach riders to all sorts of bills, even bil

  • insert subject here (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, are there any alternative DNS servers that I can user that will still point to the non-seized addresses?

  • Really? How about places where file sharing isn't illegal? There's still such a thing as national sovereignty, much as the US would like to think otherwise.

    I wonder how the DHS would like it if, say, Iran decided to start killing people in America who violate Sharia law.

  • The DHS is doing this because they can't send FBI to other countries. The next step is predator drones launching hellfire missiles into apartments of suspected downloaders. Everyone in the US cheered when those navy snipers picked off those Somali pirates that held that captain captive...
  • by Cederic (9623) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:03PM (#34359430) Journal

    At least we can put to bed the suggestion that yeseterday's story was a hoax.

    Next can we please retrieve ICANN from US control and cut off the US DNS masters? I think it's pretty clear they can't be trusted to run the internet :(

  • by SonicSpike (242293) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:17PM (#34359536) Homepage Journal

    Didn't you hear?

    Every time someone downloads an illegal song, Osama Bin Laden is sent a nickel.

  • by KingAlanI (1270538) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:21PM (#34359580) Homepage Journal

    Whatever you think of copyright, and of torrent-assistance sites, it seems that much of what was caught in this sting are sites that sell knockoffs - dealing with that and other clear trademark issues I don't have quite as much of a problem with.

    Were the seizure warrants mentioned in TFA's image actually issued and reasonably sensical? Could have a "bureaucrats who don't understand technology" issue w/r/t the technicalities.
    And let's face it, such sites seem to be aiding and abetting distribution even if they're not doing the actual distribution.

  • by mykos (1627575) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @04:34PM (#34359698)
    I was concerned for my personal safety (and the safety of the public at large) when I found out that people were hearing songs and seeing movies without a proper license to do so.

    Who knows what could have happened had these sites not been taken down. A dirty nuclear bomb? Another 9/11? There's no telling what these "music and film watchers" might have unleashed. Thank you, The Government!
  • I know... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TDyl (862130) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:00PM (#34359876)
    this will probably be modded down, but I do find it unbelievable that in the U.S. there are org's (Sea Org's ?) that are so powerful that both domestic and foreign policy (ACTA, ITO etc) are held-up as examples of "good practise" to the extent that what they want becomes law.

    Where's Alan Shore when you need him?
  • by Pliny (12671) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:09PM (#34359938) Homepage

    John Gilmore's quote was always an oversimplification. The net itself doesn't do anything but move packets. The people that use the net are the ones that find ways over, under, and around censorship. And this is censorship. We can argue about whether or not it's justified (and in the case of websites selling Chanel knockoffs as the real thing, it might be) but the fact the ICE and DHS have exerted control over ICANN is not good.

    I'm a US citizen, born and raised here. The prospect of my government having the power to control the web scares me shitless. It's time to start working on a decentralized, cryptographically sound successor to DNS. It's also time to get serious about IPv6 and IPSec (encryption at the network layer) as a way to foil deep packet inspection.

  • Cut DHS Budget (Score:3, Insightful)

    by syleishere (1811744) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:29PM (#34360084)
    Wasting tax payers money protecting music and movie industry instead of all the middle class workers who want file sharing who make up majority of voters! People will fight back on this one, can't arrest every person in north america, and in the process they'll further worsen the american dollar, especially when they are forcing file sharers to secure domains and servers out of country. In grand scheme of things, movie and music industry will have to learn how to make money off banners and online marketing like rest of us, best thing we can do is run them out of money, and cut their abuse of government funding, with no money for lawyers , and hitting them where it counts, we can aspire to true freedom.
  • Oh deary me (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Mgt (221650) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:37PM (#34360152)

    'American business is under assault from counterfeiters and pirates every day, seven days a week,'

    Somebody call the waaaaaaaambulance!

  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:45PM (#34360194) Homepage Journal

    "In announcing that operation, John T. Morton, the assistant secretary of ICE, and representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America called it a long-term effort against online piracy, and said that suspected criminals would be pursued anywhere in the world

    Here, they are in , China, Russia. Now fuck off and go prosecute them after you talked so high and mighty. i would like to see you do it.

  • Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nailer235 (1822054) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:58PM (#34360284)
    The Supreme Court has already decided that prejudgment seizures of property are unconstitutional if not accompanied by notice and a hearing on the merits. See: Fuentes v. Shevin I don't see why this wouldn't apply to domain names as well. Wonder how long it will be before this statute gets challenged.
  • it's whack-a-mole! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 27, 2010 @05:59PM (#34360300) Homepage Journal

    knock down 1, 10 sprout up, knock down 10, 100 sprout up

    intellectual property+internet=no more intellectual property. some people just need to learn the hard way. keep whacking the moles, government friends!

  • by AudioEfex (637163) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @10:19PM (#34361798)

    The part I don't get is "Homeland Security".

    WTH are they doing messing with copyright issues? This has nothing to do with "Immigration and Customs" either.

    Homeland Security should be protecting us from all these supposed "DANGER DANGER DANGER!" things that are out there that we are so scared of we are supposed to be letting the pervs at the TSA play with our junk and feel up our kids for.

    Homeless and starving families right here on our own soil, health care is a mess, bridges are falling apart, all of our "national defense" is half-way across the world, we are borrowing all our operating money from Asia...but hey, who cares, someone is downloading last week's episode of "Bones" they missed - send out Homeland Security!

    What a joke.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...