Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - A for Domain Names->

Submitted by fsterman
fsterman (519061) writes "Domain name seizures used to be a rare occurrence, but US law enforcement has become adept at exploiting a quirk in the Internet's governance structure that allows them to seize a wide range of domains without due process. The rate has been increasing exponentially, with a total of 87 in 2010 to 1,700 in mid-2013. A month ago, nearly 5,000 domains were seized by a corporation using civil proceedings. The types of attacks targeting DNS have been increasing as well, such as when a US embassy had GoDaddy shut down a political protest site."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:hmm.... (Score 5, Insightful) 112

Registrars can takedown domains for net abuse, the main thing is their terms of service are between them and their registrants, they enforce their policies.

The easyDNS Plain English terms of service state domains will be taken down for net abuse, but if you want to compel a takedown from the outside because *you* say it's illegal, you need a court order.

+ - It's Official: Registrars cannot hold domains hostage without a court order->

Submitted by Stunt Pope
Stunt Pope (3287) writes "Back when the City of London Police issued those "takedown requests" to domain registrars, most complied but as previously reported here, easyDNS didn't. So a bunch of the taken down domains wanted to move to easyDNS. One problem: their registrar wouldn't let them.

It took awhile but easyDNS fought it, and finally got a ruling under the ICANN policy that ordered the hostage domains transferred."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Police are right; easyDNS response is drama-que (Score 3, Interesting) 251

by Stunt Pope (#45077151) Attached to: Police Demand Summary Domain Takedown, Traffic Redirection

The AUP is an agreement between a service provider and its customers. That's it. So the only two entities who have any say in whether there's an issue with the agreement are the two parties to it. Somebody else wants to shoehorn their own agenda into that, get a court order or go to hell.

That's why easyDNS can and does say that they are the arbiters of what constitutes a violation of the AUP.

Or as George W Bush would say, "We're the deciders".

+ - London UK Police demand summary domain takedown, hijack traffic to competing www->

Submitted by Stunt Pope
Stunt Pope (3287) writes "This morning Toronto based domain registrar easyDNS received a request from the City of London (UK) police demanding that they summarily take down a bittorrent search site based out of Singapore — or else they would "refer the matter to ICANN" — suggesting easyDNS could lose its accreditation.

They directed them to point all traffic for the domain at an IP address that promoted competing commercial online music services based out of London, UK."

Link to Original Source

Comment: easyDNS support (Score 1) 70

by Stunt Pope (#36660206) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Registrars Support DNSSEC?

We have it designated as "beta" right now, follow the status on

You can sign your zones, etc. What you cannot yet do is submit DS keys to the regsitries directly (we're working on it) - this is a "gotcha" of our using openHRS on our backend and we've been in extensive communications with Tucows about this. We're hoping to have this resolved by end-of-summer.

In the meantime we are using ISC's DLV as a workaround.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".