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…

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The List Of Sites Challenging Domain Seizures”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
28 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

FormerAC (profile) says:

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.

DannyB (profile) says:

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.)

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...