×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

US Government Domain Seizures Failing Miserably

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the dog-bites-man-sun-sets-as-usual dept.

Government 132

ktetch-pirate writes "Operation In Our Sites, a US Government-led domain seizure action to deal with piracy, is pretty much a failure. TorrentFreak has examined a significant number of sites that have gone on pretty much unhindered, despite the seizures. Already some questions have been asked about the constitutionality of the seizures, and the evidence used as justification, but it seems the end results weren't as good as boasted either."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35705848)

We need total extermination to finally clean the scum off the internet.

Re:FP (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706170)

Agreed. Scum like you should be "cleaned off the internet".

Of course. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706322)

"US Government <insert program here> Failing Miserably"

If you expect something different, then there's something wrong with you.

Re:Of course. (-1, Flamebait)

Entrope (68843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706562)

Shut up, you right-wing troglodyte. Closing down Guantanamo bay necessarily takes a while. As does withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan or from Iraq. The same applies to finding an alternative to targeted killings (which were an alternative to extraordinary rendition).

On a domestic note, just give President Obama's health care reforms the time they need to work. (I would suggest waiting until the heat death of the universe.) Also, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman tells us that the stimulus only failed because it wasn't big enough. And if you ignore the multi-billion dollar irregular tax break that GM got, and expect still-owned stock to sell for significantly more than its current value, the US Government made money on its "investment" in Government Motors. We need not even talk about how successful Cash For Clunkers was at just moving demand around in time and making it harder for people to buy cheap used cars, or the dozen or so mortgages successfully modified under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program.

The solution to the failure of these few, small, scattered US Government programs is more US Government!

Re:Of course. (1)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707018)

My modpoints they gave me on april fools expired today, or I would have given you a +1.

Re:FP (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706354)

Sadly, it isn't yet legal to exterminate the members of the **AA. Otherwise, I'm right there with ya...

"Questions asked about constitutionality." (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705864)

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35705932)

That worked well for him, I recall.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35705940)

No, but it's worked fine for every President since.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706024)

But Nixon had some exceptional enemies. [youtube.com]

Hoax (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706066)

Re:Hoax (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706256)

WTH? Now religion gets you hyphenated status?

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706286)

so all we need to do is convince the government to smoke weed.

Re:"Questions asked about constitutionality." (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706964)

so all we need to do is convince the government to smoke weed.

Judging by what passes for political debate and decisionmaking these days, I think it's safe to say that they already do, along with just about every other mind-altering substance out there.

However, you should also realize that the corollary to Nixon's theory of crime is that when your average Joe does what the government just did, it's still illegal.

tl;dr (3, Informative)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705878)

In summary, what this article seems to be saying is, "The lobbyists are not doing a good enough job of pushing for pan-governmental Internet control."

You should also check out just how free the states were 150 years ago from Federal control.

But this is Internet speed.

Give it 15 years.

Re:tl;dr (5, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705980)

I think what you mean is:

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore.

Re:tl;dr (1, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706220)

The censorship in Egypt proved him wrong. They shutdown the internet to local citizens completely, just by telling the ISPs to go offline.

Re:tl;dr (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706478)

The censorship in Egypt proved him wrong. They shutdown the internet to local citizens completely, just by telling the ISPs to go offline.

Really, that's only half true.

http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/246707,egyptians-turn-to-tor-to-organise-dissent-online.aspx

Re:tl;dr (3, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706836)

Tor is useless if you can't even get an IP address. They were likely using dialup to other countries

Re:tl;dr (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706638)

The censorship in Egypt proved him wrong. They shutdown the internet to local citizens completely, just by telling the ISPs to go offline.

And how'd that work out [dweebist.com] for them?

The government that tried it a couple of years ago got away with it, but the next one was overthrown, and the third one has a civil war on its hands.

Pulling the plug on the internet is a crappy way to stay in power. It just doesn't work.

Re:tl;dr (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708282)

Pulling the plug on the internet is a crappy way to stay in power. It just doesn't work.

It may be a poor way to stay in power, but it is a proper military tactic. Disrupt their essential services (power, water, food) and communications, and then the enemy is blind and becomes desperate. If the enemy is an attacker, they are more likely to retreat. If the enemy is a defender, they will be more likely to surrender or suffer a total loss.

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706682)

YEAH, THAT SURE WORKED.

Where were you when they were STILL communicating with the outside world?
As long as a country shares physical borders with another country, they can quite easily be used by others to help those being censored to regain connection to the outside world.
In fact, even one without physical borders with other countries, they can still communicate other ways, satellite was being used at one point I'm sure.

This proved him RIGHT. You try to censor in the internet age, you are plain retarded.
Even China can't censor 100%, despite having one of the best firewalls ever made.
Yeah, to the simple people, they'll see only stuff China wants them to see while in their (literal) walls, but something with a decent understanding on networking, encryption, and history of internet censorship techniques can punch a hole through the wall easily.

Re:tl;dr (3, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706226)

Government interprets freedom fighters as terrorists and shoots into them.

The missing ingredients are technology and jurisdiction.

Slashdotters and the like are providing the former; lawyers and politicians the latter.

Re:tl;dr (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706312)

Government interprets freedom fighters as terrorists and shoots into them.

Except when they are supporting them.

Re:tl;dr (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706448)

Sometimes there are good governments and bad people.
Sometimes there are bad governments and good people.
Who is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706466)

that was kinda the point dude

Re:tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706608)

"Sometimes there are good governments and bad people"

Name one example of this.

Re:tl;dr (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706962)

Every single time a democracy is toppled by people seeking a dictatorship. For a list, see a few gleaming gems in the last 100 years of US foreign policy.

Re:tl;dr (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707708)

You must be talking about Germany, Japan, and Korea, right?

Re:tl;dr (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707052)

The only difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" is that a freedom fighter is on the same side as the speaker, while a terrorist is on the other side.

Similar rules apply to the difference between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation", and a host of other terms regularly used in news and politics.

Re:tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35707524)

Well, I'm sure George Washington wasn't called the "Father of his Country" in Lord Cornwallis' officers mess.

Re:tl;dr (-1, Troll)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707820)

The only difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" is that a freedom fighter is on the same side as the speaker, while a terrorist is on the other side.

If you have no morals at all, sure, I can see why you would view the issue that way. I would also say you're a despicable human being who should be ostracized at every opportunity. If, on the other hand, you care about the political goals of the group and the methods they use in order to achieve them, you have a much more tangible method for differentiating between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Re:tl;dr (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708226)

No. A terrorist attacks people that have nothing to do with the military or government in an attempt to cause terror in the public. A freedom fighter MAY also be a terrorist, but not necessarily. One that randomly targets and assassinates military and/or government targets only is not a terrorist.

Re:tl;dr (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708468)

A terrorist attacks people that have nothing to do with the military or government in an attempt to cause terror in the public.

Such as those who engaged in the bombing of Dresden [schoolnet.co.uk] . A couple of shock-and-awe questions for you:

(1) Can you name one group in the last century which has declared war but which has restricted itself to military and government targets?

(2) Which residents in a country have nothing to do with the military or government?

But the distinction between civilian and soldier is overrated, an artificial construct to dehumanise soldiers and make war seem somehow civilised.

"Terrorist" is a god-disguising synonym for "infidel", holding a similar status in political language as "patriot" and "security". See also USA PATRIOT Act in the US and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in the UK.

Re:tl;dr (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708500)

That's not at all consistent with how the word "terrorist" has actually been used.

Some recent attacks generally considered to be "terrorist attacks":
Bombing the US Embassy in Nairobi (government target)
Shooting rockets at the USS Cole (military target)
Shooting at Fort Hood (military base)
Hamas bombing Israeli checkpoints (military / government target)

By contrast, these are not generally considered terrorism, even though they would meet your definition:
US drone attacks on apartment complexes in Yemen and Pakistan
Columbine school shooting

Re:tl;dr (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708484)

I disagree. "Terrorist" implies that non-combatants are targeted, using terror as a tool against the general populace to meet a political goal. "Insurgent" would be the non-friendly version of "freedom fighter".

Re:tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706430)

Why not get a memorable IP address like 867-5309 (86.7.53.09). It doesn't appear to be in use. Seize that!

Re:tl;dr (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706896)

Not for those of us who operate a legitimate online business. I couldn't imagine what my customers and clients would say if one day they came to one of my sites and saw a domain seizure image [torrentfreak.com] , even if the government did it on accident [slashdot.org] .

Rojadirecta.es (5, Interesting)

Cigarra (652458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705888)

Of course it's a failure. Everyone I know went from using Rojadirecta.com to Rojadirecta.es to watch soccer games online. Not a problem at all.

Re:Rojadirecta.es (2)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706074)

Same with Empornium.

One day I find it's been taken down. Googled "Empornium", found a news item with a list of 15 other trackers I'd never heard of.

Sometimes you cannot fight fire with fire, you have to use water.

Re:Rojadirecta.es (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706102)

Of course it's a failure. Everyone I know went from using Rojadirecta.com to Rojadirecta.es to watch soccer games online. Not a problem at all.

Where 1 gets taken down, 10 new ones emerge.

Fell one giant tree, 10 new trees start to grow.
Kill Napster, and 10 new download programs emerged.
Kill tvshack, and 10 new streaming databases emerge. Fastpasstv.eu, project free tv, etc.

p.s. I didn't know Rojadirecta :-)

Re:Rojadirecta.es (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706172)

Kill tvshack, and 10 new streaming databases emerge>

Like http://tvshack.bz/ ? ;)

Re:Rojadirecta.es (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706120)

I've never heard of this site before. Streissand effect?

Oh, wait, I don't watch football. In fact, I hate football. Does that mean that I am a case study for the effects of piracy on sales figures? If I watch a match on that site, it is certainly not a lost ticket sale / sports package subscription / PPV fee.

Re:Rojadirecta.es (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706182)

No it probably isn't an actual lost sale to them, but it might be a lost sale to whatever other hobby/entertainment that you would have consumed when instead you spent time viewing something that was free.

Re:Rojadirecta.es (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706206)

Sitting quietly in your room is piracy! Inactivity should be made illegal! All citizens must live active lives as consumers, for the good of the economy!

Re:Rojadirecta.es (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706434)

All citizens must live active lives as consumers, for the good of the economy!

Is that you, George Bush [time.com] ?

I blame Chuck-e-Cheese & similar (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706972)

You see, when kids grow up playing Whack-a-mole at such places, the game plays with limited run time, and if they whack enough moles before the time runs out, they win some tickets or whatever. This gives a false impression that whack-a-mole is a game worth playing, and these kids grow up to be politicians.

It needs to be changed, for the good of mankind. The game should run forever and never give out prizes, and the moles should laugh at the player, like the dog from Duck Hunt. Kids should be allowed to walk up to it and whack moles until they get tired. It will teach an important life lesson, and also serve as a little entertainment for the less wealthy kids who couldn't afford too many tokens (which again, will help prepare them for their adulthood of working a long boring grind for the reward of merely supporting their current lifestyle).

Re:I blame Chuck-e-Cheese & similar (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707586)

We don't need to go quite that sadistic, and we can still make it realistic.

Here's my version: It starts with one mole. It comes up or goes down, on a random schedule. If you hit it, you now have two moles, and they tend to stay up more. Hit one of them, same thing happens again.

Prizes go out if there are no moles up at the end of the set timeframe.

Pffft... (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705910)

As if they care about actual results. The people behind this will commission their own review with their own predetermined successful results when they're ready to ask for more funding.

Re:Pffft... (1)

mescobal (1516701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705960)

Agree. The fact that they can do it at all IS the success. Other things will come with time.

The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35705942)

The practice of seizure of land, cash and other assets based only on suspicion of connection with illegal drugs is still going on to this day. It is riddled with constitutional problems and yet here we are, decades later, the practice still going on.

The airport screening efforts, though more "formalized" only exposes the stupidity of the whole thing. By most definitions, a failure but it continues.

It's nice to identify things as not working, but it has to be admitted to be a failure by the people who made it happen and then stopped. It is not a failure as it represents to the public "we are doing the best we can" so that the question "why didn't you try something?" gets asked, they can point to this -- failure or not -- as an attempt to "do something."

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706082)

Unlike with the war on drugs, the war on piracy has no mothers to say "look what happened to my son!" and demand explanations, there are no mafia-funding drug-dealers and no junkies with sharp things. The only ones demanding explanations are corporate lobbyists and the occasional filthy rich superstar. As far as the public goes, the parts who know and care at least, hundreds of millions of people are being persecuted globally because a few overprivileged rich guys want their stupid business models protected.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706622)

As far as the public goes, the parts who know and care at least, hundreds of millions of people are being persecuted globally because a few overprivileged rich guys want their stupid business models protected.

That sounds a lot like the Federal Reserve [bloomberg.com] banking system.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

aekafan (1690920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707822)

D@#m, you mean there actually is someone on this government kissing website that actually understands how poisonous some government institutions are? Wow, wish I had mods points. Thank you, sir, for giving a little bit of hope for the human condition.

Not a failure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706192)

It's not a failure if you're in the business of government. When you're spending other people's money, it hardly matters whether you "succeed" or "fail". What matters is that the money passes through your hands, giving you a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. At the top of the pyramid, ANY expansion of cash flow is desirable, no matter what the consequences. Your time in power won't last forever, and you've got to move if you want to exploit it. This domain-seizure program pales in comparison to the death, destruction, and injustice caused by drug prohibition, but the goal is essentially the same: justification for spending, borrowing, and generally expanding the business of government.

You're not in the business of government, are you?

Re:Not a failure (1)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706398)

It's not a failure if you're in the business of government. When you're spending other people's money, it hardly matters whether you "succeed" or "fail". What matters is that the money passes through your hands, giving you a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain. At the top of the pyramid, ANY expansion of cash flow is desirable, no matter what the consequences. Your time in power won't last forever, and you've got to move if you want to exploit it. This domain-seizure program pales in comparison to the death, destruction, and injustice caused by drug prohibition, but the goal is essentially the same: justification for spending, borrowing, and generally expanding the business of government.

You're not in the business of government, are you?

[Citation Needed]

Re:Not a failure (4, Informative)

Entrope (68843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706628)

You want citations?

Read any of Radley Balko's reporting [theagitator.com] on the War on Drugs (the "Studies" section of that page is a good place to start).

Reason Magazine [reason.com] has a number of articles on how asset forfeiture laws let cops seize things from innocent people and keep them (or auction the things to buy new toys), and how little traction the victims of the seizures get from the legal system.

If you would like more general examples, read this book [cato.org] .

Re:Not a failure (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706650)

Quite insightful, sir. Too bad it's posted on a site where people will defend every last government program from spending cuts until the entire country is bankrupt.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706474)

if you ever going to defeat any of the issues you complain about you have to develop a philosophy slighter deeper than "the government is evil, man"

the war on drugs has nothing to do with piracy. nothing. unless you are a stoned philosophy major. yes, then of course, it is the same thing. but if you understand how and why we are talking about different issues, you can begin to change the world. but if you continue to insist on the most broad of equivalencies, you're just another idiot who will never make a difference

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706676)

the war on drugs has nothing to do with piracy. nothing.

Unless you consider that they are both tyrannical government programs that target participants of a black market in order to protect wealthy special interests, then, yes, you're right.

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706760)

when someone is skewering a uselessly broad way of thinking about problems, it helps not to respond to their comment by being "exhibit a" of exactly the kind of idiot they are talking about

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706882)

ur face is uselessly broad

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35707404)

circletimessquare: exhibit A of every idiot who thinks he's smart but isn't

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706724)

It comes down to profits, which is EXACTLY what he was saying! The prisons? They're being privatized, and they don't make money on empty beds. More prisons, more profits, which equals more kickbacks. And how do you think certain three letter agencies pay for their dirty off the books black ops shit? Give ya a hint, they were landing C130s filled with sacks of coke and flown by the military in Mena AR in the 80s. profits from that coke? That don't show up on any congressional reports, they can do with it what they will...bribe, pay for hits, anything you please.

And as far as "making a difference"? Until the masses in the USA are ready to pull our own Egypt (which I give a decade tops) the simple fact is you won't make a difference not in the system, because it takes 50 million just to run for congress so they are bought before a single vote is cast sorry. Hows that hope and change working out? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. ANY lobbyist with the ability to write big fat checks will get more laws in a day than you can in a decade and thanks to SCOTUS they are now people too, so they are just like you only better!

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706812)

i'm trying hard to figure out if you are satire of the useless "government is evil, man" crackpot i am talking about, or an actual crackpot. people need to label their sarcasm nowadays. on the internats, there's no way to tell lampoon from reality

Re:The war on drugs is a failure too... so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35707482)

I have yet to see any implemented Government policy that is on the mark. I mean, all other scenarios vetted, what we're implementing here is as good as it gets. I'm of the strict opinion that policy isn't implemented to be efficient, accurate, or fully functional. Merely a least common denominator to point at and use as a stepping stone for furture funding. Big Business, and Big Government, work hand in hand to make sure this is s.o.p.

FTP Warez Servers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35705958)

I remember back in the day when you had to hang out in IRC channels and share FTP warez server lists. Maybe it'll revert back to that.

Re:FTP Warez Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706020)

Are DDC servers still being used for warez? Feds/business ignored them, just like Usenet.

Re:FTP Warez Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706030)

Uhm... meant to type DCC :(.

Re:FTP Warez Servers (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707714)

I remember back in the day when you had to hang out in IRC channels and share FTP warez server lists. Maybe it'll revert back to that.

When was the last time you saw anyone but a geek install an IRC chat or FTP client?

"Security through obscurity."

A return to a level of complexity the masses abandoned along about the time dial-up AOL was in its prime.

To sum it up (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35705988)

- Violation of the right to due process: domain owners who are victim of the US government are not given explanations and they are expected to prove their innocence if they want their domain back. Not only is this unfair, but whatever country you live in you really do need to worry when your government rapes its Constitution and laws and decides it can do as it pleases. On top of this, it created a huge loophole where those seizures could be used to target specific people, businesses or websites for reasons those seizures were not made for.
- Too many errors, some very serious. Not only were innocent websites taken over, but some of them were outright falsely accused of hosting pedophile content - this damage is impossible to fix, even if a judge rules the accusation was a mistake your reputation will forever suffer from this.
- Taking over "US-owned" domains failed miserably - foreign 'illegal' websites were still doing fine (as the present article says)
- Taking over domains was inconsistent and arbitrary: some were prime targets while others were ignored for no apparent reasons. I don't know about the USA but many countries require the authorities to treat crime equally and logically. In those countries more serious offenders can get priority, but it would not be OK to seize a domain because the website hosted one song while another websites that hosts thousands of songs is ignored. Selective Justice should not happen, everyone must respect the same laws and must respect them equally.

ha ha (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706288)

everyone must be under the same law? how quaint!!!

trailer park moms with a few ounces of pot get years in prison,

cocaine using prostitution beating hedge fund managers who rip off 500 million dollars get mansions and hang out with Bill Clinton

Re:ha ha (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706396)

everyone must be under the same law? how quaint!!!

trailer park moms with a few ounces of pot get years in prison,

I about choked on my dinner the other day while watching Fox News. Bill O'Reilly was whining about Willie Nelson getting out of another possession charge. His Legal pair of token breasts, err I mean "Commentator", said "It's just a minor possession charge, all he had was a few ounces."

Now, in most states even a single ounce is a Felony quantity, and in some cases anything over an ounce is legally assumed to be "for distribution or sale" which is a whole new pile of charges and penalties.

Just goes to show if you have power, money, political influence, etc. you can do pretty much whatever you want. You know, freedom for the Rich- Fuck the Poor.

Re:ha ha (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706790)

cocaine using prostitution beating hedge fund managers who rip off 500 million dollars get mansions and hang out with Bill Clinton

If you are referring to Jeffrey Epstein, he is also legally a pedophile (although I believe that technically the correct term would be pederast). Of course, I am pretty sure the reason that he got off with just a slap on the wrist is because so many influential people probably also had sex with some of his underage "servants" and if Epstein had received the sentence he deserved it is likely that he would have revealed who all made use of the services of those girls.

Re:ha ha (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708246)

pedophile, no he liked them young, but not pre-adolescent, (13-20). pederast, no they were female. I think the word for were looking for is ephebophile. (an adult that predominantly is sexually attracted to 14-19 year olds.)

Re:ha ha (0)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708374)

First let me say, I personally do not agreeing with this argument, but I understand the rational. Your example is not is not in-congruent with the "everyone the same under the law" ideal... (assuming you believe in capitalism.) -trailer park moms with a few ounces of pot does not profile much to the community and society, she does contribute to illegal trade. -cocaine using prostitute beating hedge fund manager directly trades large amount funds to generate trade directly benefiting his community with business development and growth creating jobs and other benefits to the community. He does contribute a little to illegal trade as well, and beats up criminals attempting to trade illicit services. weighted out, percent of good/bad, the trailer park mom is doing much more damage to the community, per unit of effect on the community.

Creative Solutions (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706012)

With all the side-channels, like Twitter, available these days, it's trivial to communicate a change of domain to your users, but if you're creative then you don't even have to do that. A few sites now, notably Newzbin.com have started using Tor hidden services [torrentfreak.com] to make domain seizures a non-issue.

As with any arms race, all you really achieve is creating some really neat new technologies and methods to get one over on the other guy.

Re:Creative Solutions (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706062)

As with any arms race, all you really achieve is creating some really neat new technologies and methods to get one over on the other guy.

As with any arms race, the "defender" is one step behind the "attacker". New technologies have to be invented before they can be countered, as a general rule.

Re:Creative Solutions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706250)

As with any arms race, the "defender" is one step behind the "attacker". New technologies have to be invented before they can be countered, as a general rule.

That is unless the attacker does not (sufficiently) understand current technologies and implements weak and/or fundamentally flawed forms of "attack".

I can think of dozens of internet-related measures governments have thought up or implemented, and not a single one of those would require fancy new technologies to be rendered useless.

YAY !! SLASHDOT AFFIRMS BAD GUYS WINING IS GOOD !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706064)

What is it with slashdot that it sides with murderes, paedophiles, audiophiles, and other scum, like frenchman wearing cowboy hats and looking like taco? Why is it so? Are you fucking psychopaths?

Re:YAY !! SLASHDOT AFFIRMS BAD GUYS WINING IS GOOD (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706088)

Pretty much.

Re:YAY !! SLASHDOT AFFIRMS BAD GUYS WINING IS GOOD (1)

flonker (526111) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706166)

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.

Thanks MAFIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706078)

If it wasn't for your greed and shortsightedness, we wouldn't have had the idea to start developing p2p-dns, and form groups like Anonops, who protests your immoral actions. Necessity really is the mother of invention.

Re:Thanks MAFIAA (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706200)

So maybe we should thank the MAFIAA for preparing us for when the state tries to suppress free speech?

Remove "Domain Seizures" from headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706126)

and it's even more true.

Effectiveness? (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706154)

So this campaign not only targeted sites that weren't offending, but was also ineffective against the actual violators?

There we are, I guess.

Re:Effectiveness? (0)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706402)

Yap and in he process it made the US, again, look like a nazi regime.

Re:Effectiveness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706592)

its not fascism when we do it

natives.pres.camp; it began with us, remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706258)

other beginnings can be known watching the feature film 'unrepentant'. babys rule now (natives help). disarm. that's our campaign slowgain too. after we stop killing each other by others' whims/demands/usury set upon us, the weather will improve.

not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706276)

i guess a two trillion dollar black hole in the world economy is not as important as some kids ripping brittney spears songs

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (2)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706400)

Please. Most if not all of that "two trillion" dollars is caused by megacorps like GE avoiding their taxes. The system only works if everyone plays by the rules, and blaming all the damage caused on some children stealing media they wouldn't be otherwise able to afford anyway is a pretty pathetic attempt to pass the buck and you know it.

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706462)

WHOOSH [wikipedia.org] .

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706480)

woops, sorry

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35706786)

Sure, it's all evil corps not paying their taxes. Let's run the math, shall we?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html

Oops. Isn't it annoying when reality goes against your pity soundbites?

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707156)

No, I just didn't actually know what a CDO is and should have looked it up instead of not paying attention to the title on the original post. I merely misunderstood the point being made and spoke out of turn, sorry.

Re:not a single prosecution of the CDO industry (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35707810)

How is GE avoiding taxes? If congress wanted GE to pay taxes, they shouldn't have carefully and specifically crafted a law stating that they don't have to pay taxes, donchathink?

And the internet as a whole responded (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706406)

Well, duh. It should come as no surprise that trying to seize entire domains to crack down on a single offender would fail both on an operational and PR level. Can you imagine what would happen if the police tried to stop crystal meth trafficking by shutting down entire neighbourhoods based on the mere suspicion that someone might be renting a room to a meth lab? The criminal would have no trouble relocating in a hurry, leaving dozens of irate home owners to vent their fury on the public place.

Change of Address (1)

Malties (1942112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706418)

Seizing the domains would be like an operation to cleanup the drug problem. Have the Postal Office change the address of all of the crack houses. Then no one can find them anymore. Problem Solved

How'd they continue? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35706884)

First, this hasn't just been targeting Piracy, AnonOps.ru was briefly seized as well (DHS logo and everything), but it seems to be back up now.

Second, how did the sites continue? Just move to a new domain name? Tell people to go straight to the IP address?

Operation "In Our Sites"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35707074)

Rule of thumb: The cuter the name of the so-called Operation, the dumber and more likely to fail it is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?