U.S. Government obtains warrant to seize ICANN domains

[Qwerty 42]

We're all for bashing botnets, but the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may have crossed a line -- in the midst of nabbing counterfeiters this weekend, the government organization seized the domains of a torrent meta-tracker and a trio of music sites. Today, the picture above is the only thing you'll see if you go to Torrent-Finder.com, RapGodFathers.com, Dajaz1.com or MySmash.com, as the ICANN domain registration for the four are now in the ICE's possession, presumably on suspicion of piracy. If you ask the original domain owners however, they'll vehemently refute such allegations -- the torrent site reportedly didn't even distribute torrents themselves, merely linked to them, and a RapGodFathers representative told TorrentFreak that it had complied with all DMCA takedown notifications. Apparently the websites and servers themselves are still intact, and it's only the URLs at stake, as two of the four websites are already up and running at domains ending in .info. We have to admit, this particular brand of domain squatting could be an intriguing business model. Expect "seized domains" to be tacked onto the laundry list of "Valuable Items You Too Can Buy at Government Auction!" any day now.

Now, owing to the nature of ICANN addresses, the pages can all be accessed by going directly the their IP addresses, although it seems that some don't work.

I'm hopeful that, because the government is required to obtain warrants, this can ultimately be a reasonable venture. But, given the recent direction of the United States government and the huge, international nature of ICANN, this is a very disturbing and dangerous precedent.

The Goons at SomethingAwful assembled the following table, but bear in mind that they also say that if you visit the blocked sites your information is logged, although I can't find an authoritative source that says that. Proceed at your own risk

* 2009jerseys.com 205.209.167.51
* 51607.com 200.46.107.244
* amoyhy.com 66.79.169.130
* b2corder.com 76.73.52.5
* bishoe.com NOT_FOUND
* borntrade.com 72.167.85.32
* borntrade.net NOT_FOUND
* boxedtvseries.com 74.117.235.36
* boxset4less.com 174.137.50.187
* boxsetseries.com 174.137.50.26
* burberryoutletshop.com NOT_FOUND
* cartoon77.com 174.137.52.30
* cheapscarfshop.com NOT_FOUND
* coachoutletfactory.com NOT_FOUND
* dajaz1.com 74.220.215.217
* discountscarvesonsale.com NOT_FOUND
* dvdcollectionsale.com 174.137.50.27
* dvdcollects.com 174.137.52.30
* dvdorderonline.com 174.137.53.197
* dvdprostore.com 216.18.21.90
* dvdscollection.com 174.137.52.26
* dvdsetcollection.com 174.137.52.29
* dvdsetsonline.com 174.137.50.28
* dvdsuperdeal.com NOT_FOUND
* eluxury-outlet.com NOT_FOUND
* getdvdset.com 114.113.147.143
* gofactoryoutlet.com NOT_FOUND
* golfstaring.com 82.165.67.116
* golfwholesale18.com 173.192.137.179
* handbag9.com 66.147.240.157
* handbagcom.com 211.155.25.38
* handbagspop.com 111.90.139.123
* icqshoes.com 66.96.207.237
* ipodnanouk.com NOT_FOUND
* jersey-china.com 66.79.169.128
* jerseyclubhouse.com 96.46.2.236
* jordansbox.com 173.201.157.176
* lifetimereplicas.com 212.117.165.57
* louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com NOT_FOUND
* lv-outlets.com NOT_FOUND
* lv-outlets.net NOT_FOUND
* lv-outletstore.com NOT_FOUND
* massnike.com 208.109.239.175
* merrytimberland.com 76.73.12.222
* mycollects.com 174.137.53.196
* mydreamwatches.com NOT_FOUND
* mygolfwholesale.com 208.113.171.155
* newstylerolex.com 67.210.122.220
* nfljerseysupply.com 204.152.203.100
* nibdvd.com 64.120.173.221
* odvdo.com 74.220.215.205
* oebags.com NOT_FOUND
* onsmash.com 207.58.138.102
* overbestmall.com 96.44.140.51
* rapgodfathers.com 208.87.91.18
* realtimberland.com 91.214.45.163
* rmx4u.com 212.117.166.2
* scarfonlineshop.com 69.175.121.2
* scarfviponsale.com NOT_FOUND
* shawls-store.com 69.175.121.2
* silkscarf-shop.com NOT_FOUND
* silkscarfonsale.com 69.89.31.209
* skyergolf.com 173.201.87.223
* sohob2b.com 211.155.230.241
* sohob2c.com 208.43.129.99
* storeofeast.com 72.9.245.82
* stuff-trade.com 200.46.107.244
* sunglasses-mall.com 200.63.46.139
* sunogolf.com 174.132.192.253
* tbl-sports.com 66.79.173.94
* throwbackguy.com 69.65.62.247
* tiesonsale.com 174.137.125.92
* timberlandlike.com 205.209.187.116
* topabuy.com 202.165.179.200
* torrent-finder.com 208.101.51.57
* usaburberryscarf.com 213.163.84.225
* usaoutlets.net NOT_FOUND

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm not sure where you got your thread title, but it's wrong. The title of the Engadget article is "US government seizes domain names, claims to have a warrant". Engadget says "claims" because there's no such thing as a warrant to seize an domain name.

I'm not even sure how they did it.

[Qwerty 42]

Perhaps you're right, I just thought I would give the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

[ShadowOfMadness]

I'm not sure where you got your thread title, but it's wrong. The title of the Engadget article is "US government seizes domain names, claims to have a warrant". Engadget says "claims" because there's no such thing as a warrant to seize an domain name.

I'm not even sure how they did it.

I suspect ICANN bowed to political pressure and court orders.

[Qwerty 42]

ICE issued a statement saying that they had a warrant: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/techn ... .html?_r=1

Now, as to the country's authority to seize ICANN stuff, that's another question. But the warrants were there.

[General Zod]

The Goons at SomethingAwful assembled the following table, but bear in mind that they also say that if you visit the blocked sites your information is logged, although I can't find an authoritative source that says that. Proceed at your own risk

They shouldn't be able to do anything for simply visiting the site unless you actually download materials so that sounds a bit like scare mongering. No infringement actually takes place until you start up the torrent file.

[ShadowOfMadness]

The Goons at SomethingAwful assembled the following table, but bear in mind that they also say that if you visit the blocked sites your information is logged, although I can't find an authoritative source that says that. Proceed at your own risk

They shouldn't be able to do anything for simply visiting the site unless you actually download materials so that sounds a bit like scare mongering. No infringement actually takes place until you start up the torrent file.

Technically, ICANN, is a US corporation and the government can seize anything within its borders. :/

[General Zod]

The Goons at SomethingAwful assembled the following table, but bear in mind that they also say that if you visit the blocked sites your information is logged, although I can't find an authoritative source that says that. Proceed at your own risk

They shouldn't be able to do anything for simply visiting the site unless you actually download materials so that sounds a bit like scare mongering. No infringement actually takes place until you start up the torrent file.

Technically, ICANN, is a US corporation and the government can seize anything within its borders. :/

How is that even remotely relevant to what I said?

[ShadowOfMadness]

They shouldn't be able to do anything for simply visiting the site unless you actually download materials so that sounds a bit like scare mongering. No infringement actually takes place until you start up the torrent file.

Technically, ICANN, is a US corporation and the government can seize anything within its borders. :/

How is that even remotely relevant to what I said?

I clicked the wrong quote button and didn't notice until I returned to the thread. It was supposed to the post above yours :/

[General Zod]

I clicked the wrong quote button and didn't notice until I returned to the thread. It was supposed to the post above yours :/

It's still not relevant and it sounds like conspiracy theory bullshit. The US Government can't just seize anything it wants on a whim.

[Mr Bean]

It's still not relevant and it sounds like conspiracy theory bullshit. The US Government can't just seize anything it wants on a whim.

Really? Who's going to stop us?
You?
Keep in mind the Glorious American Empire has in the past ten years seen fit to kidnap people from foreign countries, seize the assets of foreign nationals. Spied on everyone, wiretapped and invaded personal properties without warrant or trial. It has seen fit to order the deaths of not only foreign citizens but it's own citizens without any due process. So why do you think shutting down International Websites or using ICANN to out and out take them over is the one line we won't cross?

You sound hopeless naive Zod.
We will do what we damn well want because we are America.

[General Zod]

It's still not relevant and it sounds like conspiracy theory bullshit. The US Government can't just seize anything it wants on a whim.

Really? Who's going to stop us?
You?
Keep in mind the Glorious American Empire has in the past ten years seen fit to kidnap people from foreign countries, seize the assets of foreign nationals. Spied on everyone, wiretapped and invaded personal properties without warrant or trial. It has seen fit to order the deaths of not only foreign citizens but it's own citizens without any due process. So why do you think shutting down International Websites or using ICANN to out and out take them over is the one line we won't cross?

You sound hopeless naive Zod.
We will do what we damn well want because we are America.

The point was they still need at least some kind of pretext. But don't let me get in the way of your hysterics.

[Mr Bean]

The point was they still need at least some kind of pretext. But don't let me get in the way of your hysterics.

Hysterics?
You said and I'll quote

The US Government can't just seize anything it wants on a whim.

Except it can and does Zod. And has been doing for years now. Pretext implies a false reason. It wants these domains shut down, it does not have a legal justification so it invents one.

[The Dark]

I clicked the wrong quote button and didn't notice until I returned to the thread. It was supposed to the post above yours :/

It's still not relevant and it sounds like conspiracy theory bullshit. The US Government can't just seize anything it wants on a whim.

It is relevant, because it provides the legal justification. Since ICANN is a US corporation, and controls domain names (to grossly simplify), every site has a relationship with a US corporation, which the government can use in executing warrants. This will probably exacerbate pressures from the EU and China to move ICANN's control to an international body or to otherwise break the US's control of the system. Even the execution of these warrants is a legal grey area, but the existence of ICANN was likely the justification presented to the courts for why the government had authority to do this.

[Master_Baerne]

So... The United State's government seized some assets of a United States corporation under the (entirely justified) suspicious that Torrent, etc. exist to provide other people's proprietary materials free of charge? Stealing, in other words?

While it may be true that there isn't a law for this specifically yet, I find it improbable that the US government would do something outright illegal. Questionably or barely so, certainly, but that falls under the category of bending the law so that it doesn't snap completely. I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Eleas]

While it may be true that there isn't a law for this specifically yet, I find it improbable that the US government would do something outright illegal. Questionably or barely so, certainly, but that falls under the category of bending the law so that it doesn't snap completely. I'm not seeing the problem here.

Your sentences aren't even internally consistent, let alone your logic as a whole, assuming one exists.

• The US government can and has done illegal things on a scale that makes this look like literally nothing.
• If there isn't a law for this "specifically yet," then the US government cannot take unilateral action against a corporation or private person on the strength of said nonexistent law.
• Finally, "bending the law so it doesn't snap completely" is difficult when you don't feel the need to adhere to the rule of law.

The fact that some sites merely link to torrents cannot be dismissed with a smirk and a breezy nod toward "ter'rism," no matter how flimsy you may personally think the distinction is. The fact is that once you are in compliance with a law - even if just by a technicality - then that fact means you're in the clear. The proper way to go about prosecuting something like that, for anyone, is simple: they must lobby to have the law changed, or otherwise work through legal fucking channels.

Now I'm not saying that we have the complete picture of what's happening in this instance. The picture your words paint of your own notion of proper justice, however, is all too clear. I, on the other hand, don't feel "might makes right" the best model to base a society on.

[Sarevok]

^^

Imagine if ICANN were a China based organization and the government of China started globally censoring sites they don't like. US law is not absolute. They have no authority beyond naked force to decide what people using internet in rest of the world does. Ban the sites within US or something but removing it from the world wide web goes too far.

[Eleas]

^^

Imagine if ICANN were a China based organization and the government of China started globally censoring sites they don't like. US law is not absolute. They have no authority beyond naked force to decide what people using internet in rest of the world does. Ban the sites within US or something but removing it from the world wide web goes too far.

Indeed. And speaking of China, what of them? What might happen if they, and/or Russia, France, Germany, etc -- on no less valid an authority -- should press their sovereign claim to sections of the Internet? The answer is not exactly a secret: the world wide web as it exists today would be fractured, perhaps fatally.

[Master_Baerne]

While it may be true that there isn't a law for this specifically yet, I find it improbable that the US government would do something outright illegal. Questionably or barely so, certainly, but that falls under the category of bending the law so that it doesn't snap completely. I'm not seeing the problem here.

Your sentences aren't even internally consistent, let alone your logic as a whole, assuming one exists.

• The US government can and has done illegal things on a scale that makes this look like literally nothing.
• If there isn't a law for this "specifically yet," then the US government cannot take unilateral action against a corporation or private person on the strength of said nonexistent law.
• Finally, "bending the law so it doesn't snap completely" is difficult when you don't feel the need to adhere to the rule of law.

You've got a point, particularly with the bit about my sentences not making sense. That's what I get for posting without either sleeping enough or previewing, I suppose...

Anyways, I was thinking that Torrent and its myriad clones are inarguably guilty of theft, and that sites like the ones siezed, by linking to them, are accessories to that crime. While it is certainly true that the US government does illegal things on a depressingly-regular basis, they don't usually go around and announce that they did it. There are laws against theft, there are laws against helping thieves dispose of their loot. I see this action as an entirely reasonable one in that light; while there are not yet laws that say "we can confiscate internet domains," there shouldn't have to be - the ones we've already got regarding confiscation of stolen property or property used in the distribution of stolen property should be enough.

The fact that some sites merely link to torrents cannot be dismissed with a smirk and a breezy nod toward "ter'rism," no matter how flimsy you may personally think the distinction is. The fact is that once you are in compliance with a law - even if just by a technicality - then that fact means you're in the clear. The proper way to go about prosecuting something like that, for anyone, is simple: they must lobby to have the law changed, or otherwise work through legal fucking channels.

I figured that things that are legal through a technicality can be justly prosecute through a technicality, such as the one I suspect serves as the US government's justification in this case. My personal opinion, obviously, but I am rather sick of the extraterritoriality of the internet being exploited for all manner of criminal activities.

[General Zod]

You've got a point, particularly with the bit about my sentences not making sense. That's what I get for posting without either sleeping enough or previewing, I suppose...

Anyways, I was thinking that Torrent and its myriad clones are inarguably guilty of theft, and that sites like the ones siezed, by linking to them, are accessories to that crime. While it is certainly true that the US government does illegal things on a depressingly-regular basis, they don't usually go around and announce that they did it. There are laws against theft, there are laws against helping thieves dispose of their loot. I see this action as an entirely reasonable one in that light; while there are not yet laws that say "we can confiscate internet domains," there shouldn't have to be - the ones we've already got regarding confiscation of stolen property or property used in the distribution of stolen property should be enough.

The problem is seizing sites that simply index torrents sets an unpleasant precedent. When they're bagging sites that simply link to a torrent, where does that leave search engines and other legitimate web crawlers? Could the US seize Google for indexing a website that hosts torrents? (And for the billionth time, copyright infringement is not theft. Do we really need to have yet another useless argument over the definitions?)

[ShadowOfMadness]

You've got a point, particularly with the bit about my sentences not making sense. That's what I get for posting without either sleeping enough or previewing, I suppose...

Anyways, I was thinking that Torrent and its myriad clones are inarguably guilty of theft, and that sites like the ones siezed, by linking to them, are accessories to that crime. While it is certainly true that the US government does illegal things on a depressingly-regular basis, they don't usually go around and announce that they did it. There are laws against theft, there are laws against helping thieves dispose of their loot. I see this action as an entirely reasonable one in that light; while there are not yet laws that say "we can confiscate internet domains," there shouldn't have to be - the ones we've already got regarding confiscation of stolen property or property used in the distribution of stolen property should be enough.

The problem is seizing sites that simply index torrents sets an unpleasant precedent. When they're bagging sites that simply link to a torrent, where does that leave search engines and other legitimate web crawlers? Could the US seize Google for indexing a website that hosts torrents? (And for the billionth time, copyright infringement is not theft. Do we really need to have yet another useless argument over the definitions?)

One of the sites just had iframes according to its owner.

Seizing domains made up of iframes people.

I mean really :/

[The Dark]

^^

Imagine if ICANN were a China based organization and the government of China started globally censoring sites they don't like. US law is not absolute. They have no authority beyond naked force to decide what people using internet in rest of the world does. Ban the sites within US or something but removing it from the world wide web goes too far.

Indeed. And speaking of China, what of them? What might happen if they, and/or Russia, France, Germany, etc -- on no less valid an authority -- should press their sovereign claim to sections of the Internet? The answer is not exactly a secret: the world wide web as it exists today would be fractured, perhaps fatally.

That was pretty much what I was trying to get at with the idea of pressure being put on the US/ICANN to remove the internet from US jurisdiction. The problem, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, is that ICANN is responsible for managing IP address spaces after taking over for IANA, so it's possible to argue that the entire World Wide Web is an American phenomenon and falls under US jurisdiction. It's harmful in the long run for the US government to take this kind of action, because it does promote the fracturing of the internet, which is detrimental to the information-based societies of the "modern world." The US still holds a trump card in the root name file (which has not been turned over to ICANN), but this sort of incident, if it occurs with any sort of frequency, will lead other nations to consider developing their own version of the internet, whether for commercial reasons, political reasons, or for censorship and monitoring of their population.

[ThomasP]

From Techdirt:

We've already written about the latest legal loss for The Pirate Bay, as well as Homeland Security's new domain seizure campaign. With the former, the entertainment industry has already declared that it hopes this ruling will lead ISPs in various countries to start blocking The Pirate Bay entirely. It may also seek to use other tools -- like the pending COICA bill -- to see if it can seize the domain name. This presents all sorts of troubling questions concerning free speech and prior restraint. However, as is often the case when the law does a weak job trying to respond to a changing technological world, technology figures out a way to leap ahead.

Case in point, fresh off the legal loss, Peter Sunde, who has been focused on Flattr rather than The Pirate Bay, for quite some time anyway, has noted that he's working with some folks to set up a competing root server system that avoids ICANN. ICANN, of course, has been instrumental in helping Homeland Security with its domain seizures (and has apparently handed over Sunde's domain names to the recording industry in the past). The idea, apparently, is to set up a truly distributed and more secure DNS system that does not rely on a single party, like ICANN.

This certainly seems like a big challenge, and one that has a high likelihood of failure. But it does appear that we're seeing more and more problems with the way ICANN operates (though, it's been trouble since it first came into being). An alternative system, actually set up by folks who understand the technology could actually catch on, and could present a serious challenge for those who think they can censor the web in any manner -- whether for political or corporate purposes.

This isn't surprising, although the ramifications for the internet can't be good if DNS goes that route. Still, I can't say I blame people for moving this way if the system's going to be abused (even if it's grey-area abuse like takedowns without due process or questionably legal authority to enforce said takedowns).

Edit: and more on the legal details:

We had a bunch of questions concerning the legality of Homeland Security's seizure of domain names via its Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) group. The whole thing seemed of extremely dubious legality. And it appears we're not the only ones to think so.

First, it's important to understand exactly what happened. Copycense points us to a useful analysis of how the seizures actually worked. Amazingly, it appears that Homeland Security contracted out the seizures to a private company, immixGroup IT Solutions, which set up the "seizedservers.com" domain that the seized domains now point to. The other bit of useful info is that the seizures appear to have been done directly by VeriSign at the top level domain level. VeriSign, of course, controls the .com TLD, and so Homeland Security appears to have just asked VeriSign to move the domains (with a court order, of course), and it did so.

So that takes care of the technical issues. What about the legal ones? Well, Larry Downes, who knows a thing or two about the legal issues here, has a great blog post detailing some of the serious constitutional questions raised by these seizures. He goes through the details of civil forfeiture law, noting that, while seizure is allowed both pre-trial and post-trial:

pre-trial seizure is premised on the idea that during the investigation and trial, prosecutors need to secure the items so that the defendant doesn’t destroy or hide it.

Clearly that's not an issue with domain seizures. Hell, since it was only the domains that were seized (not the servers and the content itself), there's not even anything to destroy. This is where things get very questionable. Downes notes that many legal scholars have been greatly worried about the whole concept of pre-trial seizures, noting that it appears to "reverse the presumption of innocence, forcing the property owner to prove the property is 'innocent' in some way." While it's true that the domain holders can step in and fight the seizure, as Downes points out, the length of time before any trial occurs makes the whole operation prohibitively costly. And even Homeland Security is acting as if the sites have already been proven guilty, despite the fact that the whole premise of such seizures is that no guilt has yet been established:

If prosecutors drag their heels on prosecution, the defendant gets "punished" anyway. So even if the defendant is never charged or is ultimately acquitted, there's nothing in the forfeiture statute that requires the government to make them whole for the losses suffered during the period when their property was held by the prosecution. The loss of the use of a car or boat, for example, may require the defendant to rent another while waiting for the wheels of justice to turn.

For a domain name, even a short seizure effectively erases any value the asset has. Even if ultimately returned, it's now worthless.

Clearly the prosecutors here understand that a pre-trial seizure is effectively a conviction. Consider the following quote from Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton, who said at a press conference today, "Counterfeiters are prowling in the back alleys of the Internet, masquerading, duping and stealing." Or consider the wording of the announcement placed on seized domain names... implying at the least that the sites were guilty of illegal acts.

The thing is, it appears that Morton and ICE have clearly gone pretty far in stretching civil forfeiture laws, way beyond their purpose and intention (and limitations), in order to seize these domain names. And it's only going to be a matter of time until some of the holders of these domain names step up and challenge the government on these activities, which appear to conflict with basic due process, let alone free speech issues (since websites are a form of speech, this goes beyond a straight property seizure as well). As Downes notes:

The farther prosecutors push the forfeiture statute, the bigger the risk that courts or Congress will someday step in to pull them back.

It seems like the time for Homeland Security/ICE to be "pulled back" is now. Congress almost certainly won't do it, but hopefully the courts will do the job.

[Eleas]

You've got a point, particularly with the bit about my sentences not making sense. That's what I get for posting without either sleeping enough or previewing, I suppose...

Anyways, I was thinking that Torrent and its myriad clones are inarguably guilty of theft, and that sites like the ones siezed, by linking to them, are accessories to that crime.

A willingness to accept criticism of one's position is admirable, as is a willingness to form new opinions. However, your new stance is in several respects flawed:

• "Torrent" is not an entity but a distribution method, and can't therefore be accused of guilt. I suppose one could argue that the process of torrenting itself is theft. It would still be trivial to disprove (I bought Mount & Blade by way of a torrent distribution, as I recall it), but it would at least be a logical possibility.
• Following that, this "fact" is thus neither inarguable, nor probable, nor true.
• As Zod points out, whatever actual harm is done by piracy, the mechanism does not constitute "theft" in a technical sense.
• As Zod also points out, equating hyperlinks to a page and complicity with what the page does is not just bullshit, it's potentially ruinous bullshit. Hyperlinks point to a destination, nothing else. If I'm indicating the Afghan mountains on a map, that does not mean I support al-Qaeda.

While it is certainly true that the US government does illegal things on a depressingly-regular basis, they don't usually go around and announce that they did it. There are laws against theft, there are laws against helping thieves dispose of their loot.

And there are laws against unilateral invasion and wars of aggression, too. "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." This is according to Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials.

Not to throw this thread into disarray, but the actions of the United States in Iraq certainly shows that this (one of the most unambiguous statements we've seen from a US representative on the matter of international law) is something the US considers optional when it conflicts with its own interests.

I see this action as an entirely reasonable one in that light; while there are not yet laws that say "we can confiscate internet domains," there shouldn't have to be - the ones we've already got regarding confiscation of stolen property or property used in the distribution of stolen property should be enough.

This is asinine. The Internet is decentralized. You essentially propose that the United States should have full jurisdiction over the entire industrialized world, and that its fatally broken legislation on ownership and copyright (one that doesn't even seem to fully concern itself with the difference between information and physical items) should reign supreme.

I suppose "reasonable" is the key term. If we define reasonable as "in my home team's best interests, and fuck the rest", it becomes at least straightforward enough.

I figured that things that are legal through a technicality can be justly prosecute through a technicality, such as the one I suspect serves as the US government's justification in this case. My personal opinion, obviously, but I am rather sick of the extraterritoriality of the internet being exploited for all manner of criminal activities.

I think it would help if you understood the actual nature of the offences (whether they be real or imagined ones), or even bothered to distinguish between legality and unchecked dominance.