The List Of Sites Challenging Domain Seizures

from the did-erik-barnett-lie? dept

Last week, we wrote about how the Assistant Deputy Director of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit of the Department of Homeland Security, Erik Barnett, was in Stockholm talking up the "success" of ICE's legally questionable domain seizure program. One line in his speech specifically caught our attention:
"The notice says that you can challenge the seizure, but no one has yet."
Now, as we stated via our own investigations, we knew this was untrue, and that multiple sites had been trying to challenge the seizures, but had found the process to be incredibly difficult. I had thought that perhaps Barnett was being misleading, but technically truthful, in that perhaps none of the official challenges had been filed yet.

However, a confidential source with knowledge of these things suggested that Barnett is either uninformed or lying in his comments that no one has challenged the seizures. That source has passed along a list that was put together within ICE of the sites that are, in fact, trying to get their domains back. The list is as follows:
  • rojadirecta.org
  • rojadirecta.com
  • Dajaz1.com
  • onsmash.com
  • torrent-finder.com
I asked the press office at ICE to explain the discrepancy in Barnett's statements with reality, and the response was that the sites that are trying to get their domains back have filed a different type of challenge than the one Barnett is talking about, and therefore "at this point in time the statement remains accurate." Looking at the details, the sites in question appear to have chosen to focus on the process that is most likely to get their domains returned. The "other process" that Barnett "meant" not only is more convoluted and limited, but runs additional risks for the domain holders. Either way, it seems pretty questionable for ICE to suggest publicly that no one has challenged the seizures, when it's pretty clear that these sites are very much challenging them. Update: I've discussed this with a few folks with knowledge of all this, and they suggest ICE's excuse is hogwash, saying there is only one procedure, and all the sites in question are using it...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:03am

    Perhaps your informed source could explain how they are trying to reclaim their domains. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them are filing lawsuits in their own countries rather than in the US, or are directly going after the registrars rather than the government.

    Rather than speculation,rumors, and attempts to make the government look bad, perhaps you could bring some actual information to the table?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:08am

      Re:

      ...attempts to make the government look bad...


      LOL. The gov't doesn't need Mike's help to look bad.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ComputerAddict (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:10am

      Re:

      We'll bring some "actual information" to the table once they start seizing the sites based on "Actual information" vs the speculation, rumors, and attempts to prop up dying industries that they are relying on now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Steven (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:19am

        Re: Re:

        Not so fast. Ignoring the obviously snarky attitude of the AC, it's a valid point.

        It would be nice to have some more information about how these sites are proceeding, how it could possibly not count as challenging the seizure.

        Not that this lack of information makes the position of Barnett or the rest of the government agencies involved any better.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It would be nice to have some more information about how these sites are proceeding, how it could possibly not count as challenging the seizure.

          Just got more info on this... look for a post in about an hour...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      FuzzyDuck, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      > I wouldn't be shocked if some of them are filing lawsuits in their own countries rather than in the US.

      Yeah because only US law is valid in the world right?

      It would be cool if these sites sued in their own countries and won the right to seize US owned property in compensation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:27am

      Re:

      I wouldn't be shocked if some of them are filing lawsuits in their own countries rather than in the US, or are directly going after the registrars rather than the government.

      False on both accounts.

      Rather than speculation,rumors, and attempts to make the government look bad, perhaps you could bring some actual information to the table?

      These aren't speculations and rumors. They are confirmed facts.

      Will you admit you were wrong when we post the details of the first lawsuit in about an hour?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      V, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:56am

      Re: Anon Coward

      "Rather than speculation,rumors, and attempts to make the government look bad, perhaps you could bring some actual information to the table?"

      The government IS bad. Anyone who tells you differently is either working for them, with them or simply hasn't been screwed over by them... yet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:19am

    I asked the press office at ICE to explain the discrepancy in Barnett's statements with reality, and the response was that the sites that are trying to get their domains back have filed a different type of challenge than the one Barnett is talking about, and therefore "at this point in time the statement remains accurate." Looking at the details, the sites in question appear to have chosen to focus on the process that is most likely to get their domains returned. The "other process" that Barnett "meant" not only is more convoluted and limited, but runs additional risks for the domain holders.

    Can you explain what process Barnett was referring to, and by contrast, what process those five sites are pursuing? You were quite vague about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      FormerAC (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:31am

      Re:

      Update: I've discussed this with a few folks with knowledge of all this, and they suggest ICE's excuse is hogwash, saying there is only one procedure, and all the sites in question are using it...

      The only ones being vague are ICE and DHS. Actually, they aren't being vague, they are lying. But hey, they are the government, and we've always been at war with EastAsia.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:35am

    This post is way too vague.

    And there's a difference between challenging the seizure and trying to get your domain back. A big difference.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 11:51am

    Two types of challenges can be filed


    I asked the press office at ICE to explain the discrepancy in Barnett's statements with reality, and the response was that the sites that are trying to get their domains back have filed a different type of challenge than the one Barnett is talking about, and therefore "at this point in time the statement remains accurate."


    Any average asylum inmate can easily explain this. Barnett did not misspeak.

    Barnett is talking specifically about the type of challenges that count as having been filed. That's what the seized domain owners are failing to file. Instead the seized domain owners are filing the type of challenge Barnett is not talking about, specifically, challenges that do not count as having been filed.

    None of these challenges have any specific type of name or designation. The process for filing a challenge does not allow you to select which type of challenge you wish to file: either
    (1) the type that counts as having been filed, or
    (2) the type that does not count as having been filed.
    If you file a challenge of the 2nd type, it doesn't count and Barnett is still correct and did not misspeak.

    Once the seized domain owners actually file the first type of challenge that Barnett is talking about (the ones that count as having been filed) rather than any other type of challenge (the ones which do not count as having been filed) then those challenges will count as having been filed.

    It all makes sense.

    I hope that cleared it up.

    (don't think about it too much or you may end up in an asylum yourself.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MAC, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Two types of challenges can be filed

      Or, you could just ask the devil if it's ok to sin...

      The point is they are going to mishmash the legalsleeze to make it look good for them, no matter what the agreaved party does.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BeeAitch (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

      Re: Two types of challenges can be filed

      DannyB, do you work for the government? If not, I strongly suggest you apply. I think you're wasting your talents. :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 13th, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    details of first court filing

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 2:21pm

    All smoke and mirrors with smoke being the prime ingredient being as it's cheaper than buying mirrors.

    When is ICE going to open up a magic act to align it with it's entertainment value?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2011 @ 2:55pm

    Accurate vs. Honest

    I was taught that a lie is any thing said or done with the intent to deceive.

    His actual words might compute to a certain sort of truth for a given definition of 'challenge', but if he had any knowledge of what was going on, it was a lie.

    The only charitable possibility I can imagine is that he is purposely kept in the dark, like an ambassador or a press secretary, for the sake of plausible deniability. - In the which case, he is merely a tool of the real liars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This