Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

Jail Time for Misleading Domain Names 612

Posted by michael from the doh dept.
Bootsy Collins writes "The Miami Herald is running a story on the first-ever prison sentencing (and, for that matter, prosecution and conviction) under the Federal Truth in Domain Names Act. This act, combined into the larger Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003, made it a violation of U.S. Federal law to use a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive someone into viewing obscene material -- larger penalties if attempting to so mislead minors, but up to two years even if adults are the object. In the case in question, a man was convicted for registering thousands of domain names which were close misspellings of popular web sites for kids. Attempting to surf to those sites would redirect to a site entitled 'Dorm Sex Party.' Before being arrested, the convicted typosquatter made about a million dollars for the referrals." He's been on Slashdot before.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jail Time for Misleading Domain Names More

Jail Time for Misleading Domain Names

Comments Filter:

  • Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elpacoloco ( 69306 ) <elpacoloco AT dslextreme DOT com> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:08AM (#8414617) Journal
    On one hand, typing a URL and getting a "BUY THIS PAGE" page annoys the bejesus out of me.

    On the other hand, going to jail for setting up a website seems....excessive. Surely just taking it down and a fine would be enough?

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:11AM (#8414638)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:13AM (#8414654) Journal
        Deserves what? 3 years in prison? I'm all for punishing him with a big fine but prison?
        After 3 years in jail, he'll actually become a criminal once he's out.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:20AM (#8414687)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

          by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:30AM (#8414733)
          Let's see if he actually ends up serving 3 years. Maybe the judge had in mind that a 3 year sentence would be more like 1 or 1.5 after parole. A financial penalty alone isn't much of a penalty if he made all his money from the crime.

          • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

            by addaon ( 41825 ) <addaon+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:42AM (#8414795)
            What has our justice system come to when a valid reason for an outrageous sentence is "that's okay, we don't enforce sentences anyway"?

            • No, it's the concept of variable sentences (Score:4, Informative)

              by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:23AM (#8414969)
              Most crimes do not have one and only one possible sentence. Generally, the court has leeway. The law perscribes maximum and sometimes minimum sentences for a given crime. This is so there is some additonal deterrence for repeat offenders. You do something once, you are likely to get a sentence quite a bit under the maximum. However if you are back in court for the third time on the same offence, they can hit you with a harder sentence.

          • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

            by afidel ( 530433 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:57AM (#8414847)
            It's the very fact that it was a FELONY to register some domain names. He didn't steal anything, he didn't attack anyone, he didn't kill anyone, etc. I think it's pretty disgusting that he targeted childrens websites but does it rise to the level of a felony?? I mean supplying alcohol to a minor is only a misdemenor in most jurisdictions, so showing a child a picture is somehow worse then supplying them with poison? (note: I don't agree with the drinking age restrictions in the U.S. just using this as an example)

          • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Interesting)

            by bckrispi ( 725257 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:08AM (#8414893)
            Nope, there is no such thing as Parole in the Federal Prison System. He can get time off for good behavior, but for a 3 year sentence, he won't get more than 4 months shaved off.

        • The REAL truth about sending people to prison : (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:14AM (#8414920)
          I, unlike most /. posters, can comment on prison based on experience. I have spent time there, as an inmate.

          It's my firm belief that sending non-violent criminals to prison
          does more harm than good.

          There are many other ways to punish someone, besides sending them to prison : home confinement, community service, probation, fines, are all better options for a large percentage of offenders.

          Prison should only be the punishment of last resort. It is far from a solution, and the notion that sending some people to
          prison acts to prevent others from committing crimes is childishly naive, and doesn't stand up to statistical scrutiny.

          Sending non-violent offenders to prison is only one more
          in a long series of huge mistakes made by the US government.
          Of course, this will not be news to intelligent, well-read people.

          All you "law and order" types need to consider this : when someone is sent to prison, unless they die there or have a life sentence, they WILL eventually be released. And when they are,
          the rest of society will very likely pay some sort of price for the damage this person has incurred while in prison. Thus, society is
          screwing itself by sending non-violent offenders ( or offenders who don't present an actual danger to society ) to prison. Far better to keep these people OUT of prison and punish them in some other way. NOTE : I do believe that crimes *should* be punished, but the point is, it's possible to punish people without
          permanently damaging them, that sending someone to prison is quite likely to result in permanent damage.

          Any of you out there who haven't done time are not sufficiently informed to comment on the advisability of sending non-violent offenders to prison. You can of course write what you like, but keep in mind that your thoughts might have the same level of
          validity as those of a man describing what pregnancy feels like.

          Oh, and the invasion of Iraq was about preserving access to oil,
          and the "anti-gay marriage" stance the current administration has embraced is an attempt to pander to the religious right
          and gain votes.

          Don't let YOUR government sucker you into accepting policies that end up screwing YOU.

          Thanks, and good evening.

          • Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison : (Score:4, Insightful)

            by kir ( 583 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @03:27AM (#8415423)
            You are a troll. You have no credibility as an AC and you throw that off-topic "party line" drivel at us in the end (Iraq war for oil; "anti-gay marriage" is pandering; etc. WTF?).

            Troll or Tool. Take your pick.

            Either that, or you're experimenting. That little voice inside of me (SHUT UP! I'm trying to type.) is telling me [in a Jiminy Cricket type voice], "Perhaps he's not a troll. Perhaps he is performing an experiment to see how the modding will go if he posts what the slashdot 'vocals' want to hear?"

            Hmmm....
            • Yet maybe he is right. I don't agree with the whole ending Iraq stuff at the end of his post, but everything else is right on. If you ever did time for something stupid that you did, yet you learned way more within a jail cell about how to do crime "successfully" (i.e. good methods to get away with shit), you would understand his post.

              Not all of us have taken the straight and level path, yet I never learned about true methods of crime until I was within a jail cell. Spend a month (that's thirty days of hell, let me repeat thirty days of expaining to your boss why you can't show up for work) in lockup, and you'll not only learn a lot about the other side, you'll also learn a lot about that little thing that you thought was no big deal yet landed you in this situation. Troll? Yeah, a troll from jail who has experienced the misery of lockup hell. It sucks, don't try this at home. It will jade you for life.

          • Re:The REAL truth about sending people to prison : (Score:5, Interesting)

            by forgotmypassword ( 602349 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @05:59AM (#8415748)
            The problem is our prison systems. There are plenty of asian countries where the probability of returning to prison decreases significantly. Most of these prisons are run like military schools and are tailored for training people to conform to society.

            Our prisons are simply an unhappy place to be, where bad people do more bad things and have more bad things done to them. None of this promotes reform.

            I agree with your assessment, and I think that your solution is valid but only temporary. I think our prisons should be run like reform schools where people have to do back-breaking work and conform to a strict etiquette.

        • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Informative)

          by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation.gmail@com> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:42AM (#8415056) Journal
          Don't forget the 1 count of child porn he pleaded guilty to. It's not just the 49 counts of redirect sites he was sentenced for.
      • He didn't hurt anyone. He offended the religious, prudish sensibilities of some parents. Did he do anything to deserve 3 years of jail time? Certainly not. Whether or not he should be punished for putting whatever material he wants on his legally purchased domain name is debatable, but the guy doesn't deserve jail time. That's just overkill. With drug offenders flooding the prison systems for hurting no one but themselves, we don't need domain name offenders in there as well. America needs to start lighteni

        • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

          by black mariah ( 654971 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:02AM (#8414870)
          You don't have to be religious OR prudish to not want your 4 year old running into a hardcore porn site. "Five midgets, spanking a man... covered in Thousand Island dressing. Is that making love?"

          • If you want to shield them from sex, perhaps you should not have a computer, television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or any other connection to the outside world. You can also blindfold them and lock them in a dark room with their hands tied behind the back. It's for the best-- sex is a horrible, hideous thing. If you see it, run the other way, it's a monster that will consume you.

            What is your scientific evidence that suggests porn will HARM kids in the slightest?

            • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:4, Informative)

              by senzafine ( 630873 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @02:08AM (#8415133) Homepage
              If you look for research on the effects of exposure to pornography at a young age - you'll answer your own question. Children aren't capable of seeing consequences for alot of their actions. And there is actually alot of evidence that shows that exposure to pornography at a young age tremendously increases the chance for addiction to it at a later age.

              Shielding kids from pornography isn't the same as shielding them from sex. Pornography != sex.

              That said...isn't shielding young kids from pornography similar to shielding them from drugs and alcohol?

            • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

              by joto ( 134244 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @02:14AM (#8415169)
              If you want to shield them from sex, perhaps you should not have a computer, television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or any other connection to the outside world. You can also blindfold them and lock them in a dark room with their hands tied behind the back. It's for the best-- sex is a horrible, hideous thing. If you see it, run the other way, it's a monster that will consume you.

              Just like you want to shield your children from other things they are not mentally equipped to understand or handle yet, you should shield your children from porn.

              While it's probably not wise to shield your children from knowing about sex after they have shown themselves too have an interest in it (which usually occurs long before puberty), it doesn't strike me as very smart to let them discover it through internet pornography either.

              Let's face it, most internet pornography is to normal sex, as most horror movies is to experiencing a death in the family. Without the maturity and experience to separate fantasy from fiction, stuff like this can be damaging to children.

              What is your scientific evidence that suggests porn will HARM kids in the slightest?

              I doubt there is much, as this is a relatively new problem. The previous generation smuggled playboy (which is hardly comparable to most internet porn) under their mattresses. It's only in recent years that 5 year olds can see midgets pissing and shitting on women being unwillingly double-penetrated by a men with leather masks, and a dildo up her nose.

              It's hardly a secret that kids that watch lots of movies intended for more mature audiences, on their own, without adult supervision, often becomes "cases" for the special teachers, school psychologists, etc...

        • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

          by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:11AM (#8414911) Homepage
          He didn't hurt anyone. He offended the religious, prudish sensibilities of some parents. Did he do anything to deserve 3 years of jail time? Certainly not

          What is your qualification to make that statement? Are you an expert in child development?

        • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Funny)

          by krumms ( 613921 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:52AM (#8415082) Journal
          These children will not be scarred for life, nor will they become criminals or low-lifes just because they say a guy cumming on a woman's tits. Wake up to reality.

          heart ... beating faster ...... hormones ... raging ... thought of tits ... filling mind ... urge to commit crime ... rising ... RIIIISING!

      • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ZoneGray ( 168419 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:50AM (#8415080) Homepage
        If his scam had really revolved around intentionally misleading children to porn sites, I doubt he could have made much money at it. What's he gonna do, get rich off their lunch money? Besides, they show each other their stuff for that.

        It sounds like a typical prosecutor's embellishment. Not to defend the guy, it's just that what a prosecutor says after a conviction isn't subject to rules of evidence or rebuttal, and they like to puff their accomplishments. So, when both kids and adults made typos and got sent to the front door of a porn site, it was transformed into "targeting pornography at children" through the miracle of politics.

    • Re:Conflicting Feelings (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:17AM (#8414672)
      On the other hand, going to jail for setting up a website seems....excessive. Surely just taking it down and a fine would be enough?

      Definitely. And I have more commentary at my blog sites, slapdot.org, smashdot.org, slashfot.org, skashdot.org and slashdot.dot.org

  • finally... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Savatte ( 111615 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:09AM (#8414619) Homepage Journal
    Maybe they will finally put some goat sex up at goatse.cx?

  • I know this is bad..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dr Reducto ( 665121 ) * on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:09AM (#8414623) Journal
    But i would do a coupl years in prison if I recieved a couple million dollars, as long as I got to keep it when i got out. I would just write a book while in jail, and chill out. I would also lift weights, so no one would try to make me their bitch.

    • Re:I know this is bad..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KingOfBLASH ( 620432 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:12AM (#8414645) Journal
      But i would do a coupl years in prison if I recieved a couple million dollars, as long as I got to keep it when i got out. I would just write a book while in jail, and chill out. I would also lift weights, so no one would try to make me their bitch.
      Dude, you've got millions coming in from your illegal domain name scam. Leave the country. Sip espresso while watching the gorgeous parisian women walk by your cafe.
      • Dude, you've got millions coming in from your illegal domain name scam. Leave the country. Sip espresso while watching the gorgeous parisian women walk by your cafe.

        He's gonna have to go a bit farther than that. Like some country that doesn't have an extradition treaty [insightmag.com] with the US.

        Relevant portion of article:

        Meanwhile, however, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently signed two low-publicity multilateral agreements with the European Union (EU) on June 25. Known as the Extradition and Mutual Legal Assista

    • no you wouldn't (Score:5, Informative)

      by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@politri[ ]rg ['x.o' in gap]> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:39AM (#8414780) Homepage Journal
      Been there done that. There is no money worth staying in prison for. I know guys who defrauded banks for millions who would have turned the other way if it meant saving their families the embarrassment, and hardships they'd suffered by being locked up. So you mean to tell me you would put a price on your wife and kids, family, dignity? If so, then you my friend will be a lonely sad person in the future. "making you a bitch" is reserved for prisons, not white collar places, you'd have to be in a USP for something like that to happen. Club Fed as we called it is Camp Cupcake, think of a college with no chicks, and no gates (for the camps), for the lows, same shit. Medium - High you'd run into things here and there, but what your thinking of via conditioning you've seen or read about is limited to high security prisons, and state prisons. Club Fed is as they call it Club Fed.

      • Re:no you wouldn't (Score:5, Funny)

        by justMichael ( 606509 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:53AM (#8414836) Homepage
        So you mean to tell me you would put a price on your wife and kids, family, dignity?

        err, this is slashdot, the odds are good that prison isn't much different than moms basement, no windows, well except for the whole never bending at the waist thing and he would have...

        wait

        for

        it...

        One Meeelion Dollars

        note to self, slashdot and alcohol are a bad mix. ;)

      • Re:no you wouldn't (Score:5, Informative)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:06AM (#8414886)
        The federal prison system also has a lot fewer violent people behind their bars. Yeah, they have a "Supermax" where the Oaklahoma City bomber meets the Unabomber and they become friends, but that's the rare exception for the Federal system.

        Most federal criminals are white-collar offenders. Afterall, typical murderers, armed robbers and rapists all end up in a state prison, not a federal one. Most federal crimes involve business transactions gone fraudlent. Since the feds have a lot more non-violent offenders, and the ability to transport offenders from state to state, they can group all of the white-collar criminals together into a Club Fed situation in a way that the states just can't.

        • Re:no you wouldn't (Score:5, Informative)

          by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@politri[ ]rg ['x.o' in gap]> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @02:01AM (#8415114) Homepage Journal
          actually you're wrong. Colorado ADSX is called Supermax because it's a 24/7 lock down. There is no contact with anyone, no other contact period. Your mail even, is scanned and shown to you. Think Hannibal Lecter like shit, and you have your ADSX. There is also a Supermax in Baltimore, that one however allows for one hour worth of rec time. Put it like this, ADSX is pretty much your pre-coffin place to go. All of the higher ups like the Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam, terrorist from the original WTC bombing go there. There is no however meeting up to plot anything between anyone in Co., Lompoc, Lewisburgh, Atlanta USP would be the clubfeds of choice for that activity. USP Allenwood is another place for high profilers, a lot of gov spies end up there. Hanssen is there, and ironically the medium custody (lower than the USP security wise), is a lot more dangerous. In places where people have a mandatory life, most just want to go on and live the measley life because they know there is nothing left. In the medium security places, you're likely to find the most violence. People there are frustrated waiting for their day to come, and there is a lot of jealousy especially when it comes time for someone to go. Someone is liable to try to kill you because you're on the way out, and they have about 10 to go.

          Again, I say this out of experience. The lower security places called FCI's, are where people go for lower class cases, but keep in mind that as time goes on, people get their classifications lowered, so you end up seeing people who have done 20 years in a camp or a low who are on their way out in as much as 10 years. For the most part though, you won't find anyone with a 10 year sentence in a low, and someone with more than 5 years in a camp (no gate prison). So it goes like this... ADSX/Supermax = Kiss your ass goodbye. USP = 10+ years mainly violent cases, drug cases, ^*other, Mediums 10-* years (most violent), FCI's (low security) mainly on mil bases 1 month - 10 years, Camps = 1 month - 5 years. Heavy white collar crimes no security risks. Pedophiles, sex offenders, anyone with violence could never go to one of these because you have to have what's called community custody, and you don't get that if you pose a threat to society.

          So while offtopic, this is club fed 101.

    • He probably won't get to keep it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:43AM (#8414798)
      I'm not sure about this law specifically, but the government can usually seize illegally gained funds for this very reason. Otherwise, people would do illegal things to make millions, go to jail, then enjoy life. So it is highly likely they'll take what he made on this scam.
      • My grandfather knew someone who embezzled 5 millio dollars (that the courts knew about) he did 5 years, but did not have any money seized, because the money was all overseas by that time. He did have to make sure never to buy a house in America though. They can seize your assets. As for what the other guy said about losing your dignioty and what you put your family through, I wouldn't do that if I had a family. It wouldn't be worth the risk. You do it while you are single and young, and then you get ev

  • He's not in jail for showing children porn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:09AM (#8414625)
    He's in jail for taking one million dollars from the porn industry in exchange for directing people to their sites who have no credit cards and can't make them any money.

    • Re:He's not in jail for showing children porn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by unitron ( 5733 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:14AM (#8414922) Homepage Journal
      That's what I've been wondering about. According to an article over at The Register he got from ten to twenty-five cents from the porno sites for every re-direction. I realise that the more you make on one customer the more you can spend per potential customer but how many kids that mis-spell Disney or Teletubby or whatever just happen to have access to a credit card or checking account number and how many parents looking for something for their kids are going to decide to postpone that search so that they can buy access to materials they probably won't be sharing with those kids? If the last step is "Profit!" the next to last is a big ol' question mark.

  • I guess this means... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UnixRevolution ( 597440 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:10AM (#8414627) Homepage Journal
    Whitehouse.com and goatse.cx are in big trouble.

    • Re:I guess this means... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rumpledstiltskin ( 528544 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:16AM (#8414662) Homepage Journal
      probably yes on whitehouse.com, but goatse, I'd say no. I haven't read the actual USC on it yet, but I figure this guy got the book thrown at him because he was deliberately misleading children to porn sites. I mean, seriously, that's all kinds of wrong. The statute will probably be misapplied in the future, but at least they were smart enough to make the first prosecution under it an obvious open and shut case.
      As for goatse, it's not exactly deliberately misleading people. any simpleton can see that there might be something untoward about it, or at the least, not have a preset expectation toward it.

      • Re:I guess this means... (Score:5, Funny)

        by sholden ( 12227 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:22AM (#8414699) Homepage
        There are no goats, and those non-existant goats don't seem to be having sex.

        For the goat-lovers amongst us the domain name probably caused them great mental anguish due to its misleading nature.

      • Re:I guess this means... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bootsy Collins ( 549938 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:30AM (#8414734)

        The thing that worries me about the law is this: what constitutes "use"? What constitutes "using" a misleading domain name? What this guy did surely does. But what about posting a link in which you try to trick people into seeing the goatse man by using a yahoo.com redirect. Is that using a misleading domain name (yahoo.com) to manipulate someone into viewing obscene content? The law itself does not say "use = registering a domain name and setting up a website at". I don't have any problem with this guy getting prosecuted; but I worry that the law is so vague that half the trolls on /. are breaking Federal law.

    • Whitehouse.com and goatse.cx are in big trouble.

      It's worth pointing out that Whitehouse was a leading publication in the UK Men's Jazz Mag genre way before the World-Wide Web became popular. Sheesh, I spent my early teens stealing coins from my Mum's purse to buy copies of Whitehouse; ah, the thrill of riding down to Southfields for my monthly Saturday-morning cheapie. with the wind blowing in my hair etc etc...

      Therefore, I don't think the name whitehouse.org is in any way misleading. Indeed, I find

      • Re:I guess this means... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:32AM (#8415018)
        In my opinion, the rightfull owner of whitehouse.gov should be the National Parks Service. The White House itself is a historical office and residental building operated by the government. It's a tourist attraction just as much as the Washington Monument is. It belongs to the American People just like the Capitol Building does. There are some things that the White House always does no matter who the president is, those events are run by the National Parks Service and really are nothing but national entertainment that our highest elected official, whomever he is, participates in.

        The office of head of the executive branch certainly deservives a governemnt website, but that should be president.gov, or some other domain that makes it clear that what comes from the Office of the Preseident is important, but it is not necessarily the opinion of the entire government, and it certainly is never the opinion of the building itself.

        The people who actually operate the White House rarely have much to say to the media. A "White House Spokesperson" usually is a term used for somebody who is speaking on behalf of the President and cabinet-level officals. They are people who work in the office space inside The White House, but they don't exactly work for the White House. There's a big difference between the owners of a building and the tenants of a building...

  • Jail time?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MP3Chuck ( 652277 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:12AM (#8414642) Homepage Journal
    Well, hopefully he'll be able to redirect Bubba...

  • Domain name typ-O's and liknesses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mick Ohrberg ( 744441 ) <mick.ohrbergNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:13AM (#8414648) Homepage Journal
    It's about time the typosquatters are getting squeezed. I'm tired of getting shipped over to some obscure "search engine" site with 45 popups and popunders. (Thank the Maker for the popup blocker in the Googlebar!) However, I wonder how long it'll be until it goes over the end the other way - we've already seen the mikerowesoft.com story, and there's always whitehouse dot com (instead of whitehouse.gov).

    • Re:Domain name typ-O's and liknesses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ironica ( 124657 ) <pixel@noSpAm.boondock.org> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:19AM (#8414684) Journal
      It's about time the typosquatters are getting squeezed. I'm tired of getting shipped over to some obscure "search engine" site with 45 popups and popunders.

      Which has nothing to do with this story... this is about intentionally misleading people to view obscene material. As trashy as those X-10 ads may be, they're not actually obscene.

      (Thank the Maker for the popup blocker in the Googlebar!)

      Or for Mozilla, when you have the choice. (And for some reason, googlebar causes all sorts of hangs when I install it at work... on any machine. So, /sigh.)

  • Shameful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob-o-Matic! ( 620698 ) <`robert.peters' `at' `gmail.com'> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:16AM (#8414663) Homepage
    It's just shameful how many people abuse the internet... Re-directs, pop-up ads, spam, retina-searing flash ads, and so forth-- my non-techie neighbors can barely stand to be online... until I installed Firefox for them.

    Mucho Gracias to the kind folks who wrote the main apps and extensions for Mozilla and the like... people don't surf the web or use email only to be bludgeoned with it. Moz and family puts users back in control!

    I really didn't intend to make a blatant ad for Mozilla, was just recalling recent trauma from using IE 5 on an unpatched Win2K machine, and I was merely trying to find a happy place...

  • OK, so... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:16AM (#8414664)
    When does this law apply to SiteFinder?

  • Scumbags deserve it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Heartz ( 562803 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:17AM (#8414668) Homepage
    I have absolutely no problem if those sites were adult sites. My issue with these dudes is that they are delibrately TRICKING kids into viewing the porn.

    Kudos to the authorities for clamping down on this dude.

  • I for one am glad (Score:5, Funny)

    by pHatidic ( 163975 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:19AM (#8414682)
    You have no idea how many times I try to type in hotmail.com and my fingers slip and hotmom.com comes out. Or even worse when I try to visit whitehouse.gov and mis-spell it as goatse.cx.

  • About time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HeLLLight ( 748979 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:20AM (#8414690) Homepage
    When my sisters kids come over and we go on to the net to look for Barbie's and the like; the amount of times something a little 9 year old shouldnt be seing is incredible. Thanks goodness someone is looking to combat this problem. Although I do question whether going to jail is in order. Making them take down the website and if the then keep re-affending THEN slap them with some jail time.

  • Misleading domain names aren't the only problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:21AM (#8414694)
    The other day, a friend and I were using google to try and locate sites that had a demo of simant (actually, we were hoping for a free download, but that didn't happen). Using the terms "+simant+download", I was rather dismayed to see that the vast majority of results were PORN sites that used the term simant in their keywords. I'm all for freedom of the internet, but if you can't be responsible enough to be honest about what your site contains, you really don't deserve the freedom. What I saw was just plain pathetic, and I don't think I'd be against a law that forbid this kind of misleading characterization of content.

  • How on Earth do they come up with these acronyms?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:21AM (#8414697)
    "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT) of 2003"

    And the PATRIOT act as well...

    Do they have some software that generates acronyms that also happen to be (seemingly) appropriate words??

  • Too light of a sentence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:22AM (#8414702) Homepage Journal
    From the article: "Zuccarini admitted in court documents that one reason he preyed on websites popular among children was ''because children are more likely than adults to make spelling errors and to mis-type website addresses,'' prosecutors said.

    If he had made the statement that he misspelled the domain names to attract adults, thats one thing, but in his case intention is everything. He should of received 30 years.

  • Can I sue??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:23AM (#8414703) Homepage

    There is this one site called www.hornyteens.com , and after very careful research, I think some of those girls are actually probably in their early twenties, or late twenties. I want my money back.

  • This guy has had 3.5 years to learn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:31AM (#8414740)
    Go to GigaLaw [gigalaw.net] and search for 'zuccarini'. John Zuccarini has been busted for this before.

    My mom has a German Shepherd that learns faster than this for godssakes.

  • Deterrence (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dghcasp ( 459766 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:32AM (#8414743)
    I'm finding it funny that people are saying "What? Jail time is way too much for this? Shouldn't you just make them take it down?"

    That's no deterrent... Make a million, someone tells you to stop. You still have the million. Where's the deterrance?

    On the other hand, most people don't want to go to prison. Prison is bad. It scares people who aren't already criminals. What are you going to answer on the next job interview about what you were doing the past two years? "Oh, I was in prison because of a stupid federal law. And I learnt all about the bizzare kinds of sex that I was redirecting people to first-hand." Or first-arse. Whatever.

  • The good and the bad... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by no longer myself ( 741142 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:42AM (#8414791)
    Of course we all want the scumbags to go to jail for bringing about this tragedy of the commons, but at the same time I can't help but wonder if it's possible to use this bit of law as the first step in the direction towards censoring any internet content that someone might find offensive.

    Oh sure... Someone could argue that partybeef.com could be typed in by a 6 year old looking for snacks for her friends, (not a real site, so use your imagination...) Next thing you know the site operator ends up as a piece of party beef in a federal prison because someone decided it was obviously misleading.

    What is obvious to me is that the next step will involve going after anyone who puts objectionable material on the net without it being clearly labeled, registered, and hidden behind a credit card required brown paper wrapper page.

    And what about unintentionally misleading Google results [google.com]? When will they hold us liable for that? This one actually disturbs me a little.

  • Also... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nimloth ( 704789 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:45AM (#8414802)
    I think Hotmail.com should be prosecuted for diverting traffic off of Hotmale.com. Some kids expecting gay pr0n might be offended by the usual "Enlarge your penis".

  • Messed up... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by softspokenrevolution ( 644206 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:45AM (#8414806) Journal
    That's just really gross. Really, if I was a porn site provider and some guy was redirecting to my site through kiddie bits, I wouldn't be very happy. Primarily because they're taking my money and just throwing it all over the place.

    Beyond even the issue of being a scum bag with arguably scummy people, using sites popular with children with a method that drags in more kids than adults. I think this makes him the kingof the scumbags.

  • Lock him up... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:18AM (#8414945) Journal
    From the article: Zuccarini admitted in court documents that one reason he preyed on websites popular among children was ''because children are more likely than adults to make spelling errors and to mis-type website addresses,'' prosecutors said. He then redirected the children to porn.

    This is a sick person. He targeted children. Not only that, but if people can make a stink about Lindows because it sounds too much like windows and causes confusion in adults at computer stores, then how can they let this slide where he tricked children to watching porn? What the hell is this guys value system? Making 10 cents off each child he tricks to going to a porn site? Was the 10 cents worth it for him? I would like to hear what he has to say in prision, when he is forced to look at jail porn, live and first hand.

  • Dorm.Sex.party - Cell-block.assrape.festival (Score:4, Funny)

    by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:25AM (#8414974) Homepage Journal
    Instead of "Dorm sex party" his website will have to say "Cell Block assrape festival." He's going to be passed around like a joint and won't be able to sit down for a week before they're done with him.

  • Superstitious stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:27AM (#8414987)
    Kiss a tit, it's an X. Hack it off with a sword, PG-13 --Jack Nicholson

  • Is $1, 000 000 worth 30 months jail? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CreationX ( 746950 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:30AM (#8415002)
    So really at the end of the day this person has pocketed $1 million USD for 30 months jail. No wonder he pleded guilty. I would trade a short holiday to jail for that....!!!

  • No, that's not the first jail sentence (Score:3, Informative)

    by rahard ( 624274 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:31AM (#8415010) Homepage Journal
    No, that's not the first jail sentence. Here, in Indonesia, there was one case of domain name squatter that resulted in jail time. The person who did this registered a competitor domain name. He was sentenced to jail. It was treated as unfair competition. He went to the slammer for 3 months!

    -- b

  • Bah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Deltan ( 217782 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:31AM (#8415013)
    America is becoming less & less "American" all the time.

    The government is -not- your mom. They shouldn't be required to take these kinds of measures because some soccer mom saw her child get re-directed to some hot fisting action.

    If there's any 'america' left in Americas geeks, some smart kid will capitalize on soccer mom paranoia; by writing an app which catalogs all these re-directs and makes sure that the user never sees the end result of that offensive URL. Then sell it for mucho coin. Yay for Free Enterprise and not Socialism!

  • Profit??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by corian ( 34925 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:42AM (#8415058)
    It's just bad business sense more than anything else. Who is the potential customer? How many people are heading to, say, slashdot or nytimes.com to read the news or such, make a typo, get one of these sites, and say "oh, this looks good! i think i'll get out my credit card and subscribe to this!"

    Of course not! You're going to just close the window and try again to type in the site you wanted to go to in the first place.

    If you wanted porn, it's easy enough to find yourself. Even if you were the type to pay for it, would you really go to the source with in-your-face pop-up advertising? Jeesh.

    I wouldn't make it illegal, but I can't see ANY possible financial benefits for porn sites to justify this practice.

  • ICANN dropped the ball (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Sully (I hate a ( 665201 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:46AM (#8415070)
    I was quite disappointed when ICANN did not set up a ".xxx" domain. The purveyors of smut in the past has gladly taken up the X or XXX rating so that customers could be sure of the quality of the product that they were getting. I am sure that the internet generation would be more than happy to do the same thing because the .xxx domain would tend to drive traffic to their sites.

    Oh, well, another reason to get rid of ICANN.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus

Close