Ashcroft v. Registrars on Domain Property Status 62
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.
my thoughts.... (Score:1, Insightful)
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)
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)
well, we always refer to domains as "my" domainname. people (even on
Re:my thoughts.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:my thoughts.... (Score:2)
Re:my thoughts.... (Score:2)
Bigger problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the only crime where such an action is permitted, and it is wrong.
Re:Bigger problem (Score:2)
Re:Bigger problem (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Ugh...no good answer (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Tampering with Evidence (Score:2)
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?
Re:Tampering with Evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:Wiretapping (Score:2)
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)
But Ashcroft scares me.
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.
Re:Ashcroft (Score:1)
Or can we atleast take his power away somewhat by voting?
Re:Ashcroft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
I agree though, they all scare me and I am just stunned by some of their decisions. And I think -- We're paying them for that?
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
In fairness... (Score:1, Insightful)
It made the Dittoheads look like dorks when talking about Clinton, it makes us dissenters look like fools when talking about Bush.
Let's attack his policies, which seems pretty easy to do right now, instead of the man. Resist the temptation! Otherwise those on the fence will just tune us out as radical nutjobs making a rukus.
OK?!
Re:In fairness... (Score:2)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
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.
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
Ahem. (Score:1)
I'm not voting for Bush.
He's not a Christian, he's a fascist.
Re:Ahem. (Score:2)
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...
Re:Ahem. (Score:1)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Scorched earth (Score:1)
Re:Scorched earth (Score:1)
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.
Re:Scorched earth (Score:2)
Hey, maybe those right-wingers aren't such fascists after all?
Re:Scorched earth (Score:2)
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.
Re:Scorched earth (Score:2)
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)
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!
this story not on slashdot.org (Score:1)
Re:this story not on slashdot.org (Score:2)
Ashcroft (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:Ashcroft (Score:2)
And now Ashcroft is looking to bone the rest of us.
Property (Score:2)
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.
Word association: Property... (Score:1)
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?
Re:Word association: Property... (Score:2)
Re:Word association: Property... (Score:1)
Whoa. (Score:1)
property tax? (Score:2)
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.
Re:property tax? (Score:2)
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.
i d= 5447427
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=56079&c
Re:property tax? (Score:2)
You can still order bongs online... (Score:2)
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.