Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet Censorship Crime Government United States Your Rights Online Technology

Inside the DOJ's Domain Name Graveyard 72

hugheseyau writes "Between November 2010 and May 2011, the US Department of Justice (DoJ), under many banners including the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), seized over 140 domain names from sites allegedly engaged in the 'illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works' or other illegal activities. But what exactly happens when domains are seized in such a manner? This article provides insight into the takedown process as well as providing a unique look into the DoJ's domain name graveyard."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inside the DOJ's Domain Name Graveyard

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2011 @03:14PM (#36323622)

    It's mostly counterfeit goods domains seized, almost nothing for online pirate streaming, though a few of those are there.

    But this points out that the DNS system is a weak link, and can no longer be trusted. Something peerless should replace it, but at this point in time, anything that does needs to bridge the existing DNS system.

  • by fysdt ( 1597143 ) on Thursday June 02, 2011 @03:38PM (#36323922)
    Murder is an obvious crime. The people operating these websites did not commit crimes. For example, torrent-finder was taken down by the ICE and this website is not even close to criminal. It is metasearch engine. The DoJ is probably getting lobbied by the MPAA.
  • by ElectricTurtle ( 1171201 ) on Thursday June 02, 2011 @03:41PM (#36323950)
    Wow, that's an awesome strawman. I mean who else would have thought about comparing freedom of expression to violent crime? I suggest you wrap that up and put it in a field somewhere for the crows.
  • Re:Intent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GumphMaster ( 772693 ) on Thursday June 02, 2011 @07:30PM (#36326422)

    The article mentioned nothing I could see about the owners and operators of the site being convicted of any crime. That is what disturbs me. Quite aside from the potential future free speech ramifications, the presumption of innocence seems to be forgotten. This really looks like the US Govt. picking up the tab for making inconvenient sites go away so the trademark holders etc. don't have to dip into their precious profits.

    Can anyone point to a conviction that lead to this action?

"To take a significant step forward, you must make a series of finite improvements." -- Donald J. Atwood, General Motors